Creation vs. Evolution

[MichaelCadry]

Dear All,

Check out the post below. It is a partial post of many:


Creation vs. Evolution Evidence

Universal Decay and Conservation of Matter/Energy

In your everyday life, have you noticed that everything tends to fall apart and disintegrate over time? Decaying buildings, bridges, roadways, automobiles and clothing—that everything is subject to deterioration and is in constant need of repair. Each year, vast sums of money are spent on maintenance and medical bills to counter the unrelenting effects of decay. Material things and all known processes proceed from organization to disorganization—from cosmos to chaos.

Eventually, all things wear out and return to dust1—material things are not eternal including our human bodies. Do you wonder why we get old and ultimately die? Age, disease and death of all living things are tied directly to the Second Law of Thermodynamics (sometimes referred to as the Law of Increasing Entropy), which states that usable energy in the universe available for work is decaying or running down to a state of inert uniformity, or heat death.

Although quantity of matter and energy remains the same (according to the First Law of Thermodynamics), the quality of matter/energy deteriorates gradually over time. Every energy transformation reduces the amount of usable or free energy and increases the amount of unusable energy. In other words, as usable energy is used for growth and repair, it is “irretrievably lost in the form of unusable energy.”2 The effects are all around, touching everything in the world.

The First Law of Thermodynamics states that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can be transferred from one form to another. This law confirms that creation is no longer occurring but it also implies that creation occurred at sometime in the past! In today’s world, there is no creation of new matter and energy rising to higher levels of organization and complexity as evolutionists would have you believe.

Let’s take a step back in time. Because the universe is constantly losing usable energy and never gaining, one can reasonably conclude the universe had a beginning—a moment of least entropy. That is, a time of minimal disorder with a minimal amount of unusable energy—a time when the First Law of Thermodynamics did not apply—a time of creation when systems were rising to higher levels of organized complexity. This is no longer occurring today.

The universe is winding down which would logically mean the universe was created with plenty of usable energy—so the question one might logically ask: “Who wound up the clock?”4 According to Scripture, the moment of least entropy is fully described in Genesis 1. Applied to the whole universe, this is a fundamental contradiction to the “chaos to cosmos, all by itself” nature of evolutionary doctrine.5

No experimental evidence disproves these laws of science, say physicists G. N. Hatspoulous and E. P. Gyftopoulos: “There is no recorded experiment in the history of science that contradicts the Second Law or its corollaries …”8

1. Taylor, Paul S. (1998–1999). Second law of thermodynamics – Does this basic law of nature prevent evolution? Gilbert, AZ: Eden Communications, Christian Answers Network,1. Retrieved April 2008, from http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-thermodynamics.html (adapted from Taylor, Paul S. [1995]. The Illustrated Origins Answer Book. [5th Ed.] Mesa, AZ: Eden Communications), 1 and Emmett L. Williams (Ed.). (June 1981). Thermodynamics and the Development of Order. Norcross, GA: Creation Research Society, 18.
2. Second law of thermodynamics. (2008). (M. Houdmann, P. Matthews-Rose, R. Niles, editors). All About Science. Retrieved April 2008, from http://www.allaboutscience.org/second-law-of-thermodynamics.htm (AllAboutScience.org).
3. Entropy. (May 2008). Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved May 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy.
4. Second law of thermodynamics. (2008), op. cit.
5. Thaxton, C.B., Bradley, W.L., and Olsen, R.L. (1984). The Mystery of Life's Origin. Dallas, TX: Lewis and Stanley; as cited in Catchpoole, D., Sarfati, J., and Wieland, C. (2008). The Creation Answers Book. (D. Batten, Ed.), Atlanta, GA: Creation Book Publishers, 21.
6. Wilson, J. (2007). Scientific laws, hypotheses, and theories. Retrieved April 2008, from http://wilstar.com/theories.htm.
7. Whitcomb, J.C., and Morris, H.M. (1961). The Genesis Flood. Phillipsburg, NJ: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 224–225.
8. Hatsopoulos, G.N. and Gyftopoulos, E.P. (1970). Deductive Quantum Thermodynamics. In: A Critical Review of Thermodynamics. (E.B. Stuart, B. Gal-Or, and A.J. Brainard, Editors). MD: Mono Book Corporation, 78. Also cited in Taylor, op. cit., 3.

About the Author: Dr. Roger Gallop has spent over 30 years as a professional geologist and marine scientist. He has a bachelors in geology, a masters in oceanography, and a Ph.D. in science education (emphasis: research design using multivariate statistics). In addition to his science background, he was an officer in the U.S. Marine Corps and is a decorated Vietnam veteran. He has been happily married for over 40 years with one son and grandson.

Copyright © 2011 -2016, Red Butte Press, Inc. All rights reserved. Use Policy and Privacy Policy

 

[Tyrathca]

Copyright © 2011 -2016, Red Butte Press, Inc. All rights reserved. Use Policy and Privacy Policy

Michael despite what are probably innocent intentions what you have done is probably illegal, you've reproduced someone's copyrighted material in bulk without even an attempt at appearing "fair use" . You've literally ctrl-c and ctrl-v.

Not to mention this is unnecessarily spammy, you could have just posted a smaller excerpt, some comments about it and then linked the rest.

 

[TheDuke]

Take a look at how evolutionists imposed beliefs on so called psuedogenes. The data was that these genes were observed in different species, and appeared to have no function. The belief imposed on the data can be seen in this wiki defintion "Pseudogenes are functionless relatives of genes that have lost their gene expression...". That is a belief imposed on the data.

Not really. The sequences of any pseudogene show concretely all the components that are also present in normal genes. That's why they are called "pseudo-" and not anything else.
The definition is spot on, because it's evident that these genes used to be in a normal condition with regular gene expression.

But I understand your confusion.

Here's an example of imposing belief on the data:
"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record." [from AiG]

Let me know when you find something similar in a science journal...

How do you reckon anybody noticed that pseudogenes might have a purpose, if not by analysing their prevalence in various related species?

Again, you are trying to impose your belief onto the data. It also works like this.... you and I find a gene in a mouse that petforms a certain function. If humans have the same gene, we expect it may petform the same function. We have opposite beliefs about the past, but we both made our amazing discovery together because of our brilliant minds and our knowlege of genetics. I can claim 'Thats evidence of design'..... you can claim its evidence of common ancestry. But the discovery was made because of our knowledge of genetics; not because of our beliefs.

Your equivocation would make sense if that were the only piece of evidence on the table and if there were neither scientific rigour, nor a concept of methodological naturalism in place.

Unsurprisingly you failed to actually address the question, but maybe it's because you didn't quite understand it??? Anyway I'll leave it to Jose, who apparently enjoys this more than I do, to explain to you the details....

What exactly has creationism ever contributed to science?

....
[some handwaving wannabe philosophical musings here]
....

Evolutionary biology does not contribute anything towards newer technologies or better medicines. In fact many of the technologies mentioned have direct links to creationists.

computers...Charles Babbage, creationist but not Bible creationist, invented computing machines.

cell phones...James Maxwell, Bible creationist, pioneered electromagnetic radiation theory upon which cell phones depend.

airplanes... The Wright brothers who were both creationists invented the airplane after studying God's design of birds.

food... Modern day creationist and geneticist John Sanford has inventions which improved food crops, feeding the world

and even space travel.... Werner von Braun believed in a designer....opposing evolution. He headed the moon landing program.

So, I see I've hit a nerve there....
Let's make this clear: creationism^TM is biblical literalism and the dogmatic rejection of contradicting facts.
You may have misinterpreted my question as being: whether individuals who hold the aforementioned belief are capable of creative ingenuity. But that's not what I asked. I wanted you to give me ONE example of a piece of scientific work, where (regardless of the author's personal beliefs) the application of creationism to the scientific endeavor resulted in a usable finding/insight.


PS: If you're interested, you can search my posts for a few examples of evolutionary biology directly contributing to medicine and technology.

PPS: I would very much like to argue about the point made in that book you mentioned, but alas, I'm unfamiliar with it

 

[Jose Fly]

We disagree. Discoveries are made through knowlege of genetics. Not theough beliefs.

Then we're back to one more of those questions you won't answer....

How did these geneticists know which genomes to compare, where to look, and what to look for?

And certainly not through beliefs which have hindered science causing people to believe that "our genome is filled with the remains of extinct genes". (Susumu Ohno I quoted from the journal Nature "Pseudogenes, for instance, have been viewed as non-essential genomic elements and have mostly been ignored." IOW, it is evolutionary biologists themselves admitting they ignored psuedogenes because iof their beliefs

As I explained earlier, some evolutionary biologists thought all pseudogenes were non-functional, others (e.g., panselectionists) thought they were functional. So geneticists, armed with the understanding of evolutionary common ancestry, did some research and they found very small percentage of pseudogenes have been co-opted for new functions. That's how science works.

But we can answer this question pretty easily. Remember, the draft human genome was published in 2001. In 2003 there were already papers like this one: Pseudogenes: Are they "junk" or Functional DNA?. And notice something else about that paper? They note the fact that even at that time geneticists had already identified "functional roles" for some pseudogenes. Not only that, but a simple search of the literature for "pseudogene" and "function" turns up plenty of papers from the 1990's that either speculate about possible pseudogene functions, or directly identify those functions (and some even offer evolutionary pathways for how it happened). If we go back much farther that that, we hit a time period where the sequencing technology just wasn't sufficient to properly investigate this issue.

But even then, here's a paper from 1977 that discusses a possible function for a pseudogene.

So it seems all your rhetoric about "evolutionists ignoring pseudogenes" is flatly contradicted by reality.

Don't get so excited just because they use the word evolution.

LOL! Really? That's the only role you think evolutionary theory played in this research? Just a meaningless word they threw in because.......reasons?

I'm wondering if you even read the very paper you've been citing. I mean, they explicitly state how our understanding of evolution has led to these discoveries...

Analysis of conserved transcribed pseudogenes shows that ∼50% are indeed conserved across millions of years of primate evolution (though far fewer are conserved between species more distant to human, such as rodents) (Khachane and Harrison 2009). That transcription of some pseudogenes is tissue-specific, dynamic, and has been maintained over millennia suggests that their transcripts may play some functional role in cells.​

Not only that, but remember....Pink et al. is a review paper, which means it's an overview of the research that had been done on pseudogenes up to that point. If we want to really get into the details of the research they're summarizing, you have to go to the original research papers they cite. So, when it comes to the question of how geneticists identified which pseudogenes to look at, we can go to papers like Khachane and Harrison (2009). And lo and behold, they state in no uncertain terms (emphasis mine)...

Through evolutionary analysis, we have identified candidate sequences for functional human transcribed pseudogenes, and have pinpointed 68 strong candidates for further investigation as potentially functional transcribed pseudogenes across multiple mammal species.​

It doesn't get much more clear that that.

They did the research based on mutation rates and under the same assumptions Biblical creationists like geneticist John Sanford uses.

Really? Where is Sanford's work on pseudogenes? I'd be very interested to see how he incorporated this into his work...

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).​

I'd also be interested to see how he explains this under creationism...

Comparison of transcribed human pseudogenes shows that ∼50% are conserved with rhesus monkey, but only 3% are conserved in mouse (Khachane and Harrison 2009).​

(Similar functions found in different creatures may have similar genes).

Why is that an assumption under creationism?

And they did it under the assumptions science is now proving false (Junk DNA / psuedogenes)

It's obvious to me that you really don't understand the paper we've been discussing. Normally that's understandable, because it's a very small set of people who understand molecular genetics. But here, you're attempting to speak as an authority on this subject, and pass judgement on the work these scientists have done. So I'd say anyone who deems themselves qualified to do that had better know the subject. Wouldn't you agree?

In a nutshell, a big part of the research this paper reviews has to do with intron and exon sections in a gene. During transcription when the DNA sequence is copied into mRNA, not all of those mRNA transcripts will go to make proteins (the ones that do are the exons). Introns don't go on to make proteins, and instead are cut out before translation (into proteins). In some cases the RNA produced by the introns goes on to perform a regulatory role.

So, in a pseudogene you have both introns (non-coding) and exons (coding). Mostly what this paper describes are where the original gene has lost its coding/protein-making function, but the genome has co-opted the regulatory part and used it to regulate some other activity. But (and this is the key), the exon portion of the pseudogenes remains non-functional.

Do you understand what that means? It means when they looked at these pseudogenes, they found non-functional protein-coding sections that remain broken, and a handful of pseudogenes with non-coding, regulatory sections that the genome had co-opted to perform new regulatory functions. But the main parts of the gene...the protein-coding part (exons)...do not work. IOW, in terms of the gene's protein-coding function, these pseudogenes are just that....pseudogenes

So if your argument is that God deliberately put these sequences in there to perform these regulatory functions, one has to ask....why include the non-functional exons? Why not just put the useful introns in there, and leave the exons out? :think:

Since these 'useless relics' were used as evidence of common ancestry, I'm imagining that we can now use these useful and functional genes as evidence of our common Designer

That's going to take some explaining on your part (see above).

Genetic research helps confirm the Biblical account of creation, that we are created by extreme intelligence.

It does? How?

 

[6days]

How did these geneticists know which genomes to compare, where to look, and what to look for?

Rather than looking for things that they think may confirm their belief, they should look at all so called psuedogenes. It is their false beliefs which hinders science and caused evolutionists to ignore these in the past.

And certainly not through beliefs which have hindered science causing people to believe that "our genome is filled with the remains of extinct genes". (Susumu Ohno I quoted from the journal Nature "Pseudogenes, for instance, have been viewed as non-essential genomic elements and have mostly been ignored." IOW, it is evolutionary biologists themselves admitting they ignored psuedogenes because iof their beliefs

As I explained earlier, some evolutionary biologists thought all pseudogenes were non-functional

Again... the article in Nature says they have MOSTLY been ignored. Fortunately SOME scientists set their beliefs aside to explore and research.

Don't get so excited just because they use the word evolution.

That's the only role you think evolutionary theory played in this research?

It really played no role. If you read the article, you see they are trying to impose their beliefs onto the data... Lets look.
From the article..."Analysis of conserved transcribed pseudogenes shows that ∼50% are indeed conserved across millions of years of primate evolution"
In other words 50% is not conserved, same as Encode reported about so called "junk" DNA. They found this result surprising. "Surprisingly, many functional elements are seemingly unconstrained across mammalian evolution. This suggests the possibility of a large pool of neutral elements that are biochemically active but provide no specific benefit to the organism. This pool may serve as a 'warehouse' for natural selection, potentially acting as the source of lineage-specific elements and functionally conserved but non-orthologous elements between species."

There you go... They are surprised at the NOT conserved. (Funny sidepoint... Evolutionists again impose their beliefs on the evidence thinking that the genome saves things for future use..."as a warehouse"

Also from the same article.... Speaking of the NOT conserved "junk" DNA..."This is perhaps the biggest surprise of the pilot phase of the ENCODE Pilot Project, and suggests that we take a more ‘neutral’ view of many of the functions conferred by the genome.”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v447/n7146/full/nature05874.html

An intelligent Creator... like the God of the Bible... or any other designer, will likely use similar parts to perform similar functions. It is evidence of design. Ford often uses similar alternators from one year to the next. General Motors uses a similar design, but different to perform slightly different in different cars. The similarity is evidence of intelligence.

 

[6days]

Not really. The sequences of any pseudogene show concretely all the components that are also present in normal genes. That's why they are called "pseudo-" and not anything else.

Nope... That's based on a false belief system. Science is discovering many functions... especially regulatory functions of the so called 'pseudogene'. Its evidence of design...purpose, function.

And... your comment about why they are called "pseudo" is based on evolutionary beliefs and lack of knowledge.
From "Pseudogenes and Their Evolution," Encyclopedia of Life Sciences {Podlaha and Zhang}
"The term 'pseudogene' was originally coined to describe a degenerated RNA- or protein-coding sequence that is incapable of being transcribed or translated into functional RNA or protein products. The key in this definition is that pseudogenes are biologically nonfunctional. However, in practice, it is virtually impossible to experimentally establish nonfunctionality; the lack of any observable phenotypic effect upon the deletion of a putative pseudogene does not necessarily mean that the deletion has no phenotypic effect, because the effect may be too subtle to observe. When more and more research groups are coming across cases where a so-called pseudogene is potentially involved in a meaningful biological interaction, primarily in gene regulation (Tam et al., 2008; Watanabe et al., 2008), it becomes increasingly difficult to define pseudogenes. Is it appropriate to call such noncoding yet functional sequences pseudogenes? This is where the boundaries of the pseudogene definition become hazy."


[

 

[6days]

Evolutionist Don't Have a Clue

Evolutionist Don't Have a Clue

creationismTM is biblical literalism and the dogmatic rejection of contradicting facts.

Creationism provides the best explanation to the evidence.

“Pssst! Don’t Tell the Creationists, but Scientists Don’t Have a Clue How Life Began”, is an article in the Feb 2011 Scientific American. John Horgan actually wrote the article 20 years ago but the editor at the time wouldn't print it. That 20 years have past and for the article still to be relevant speaks as to how false evolutionary theory, (and the origins of life) really is.

Horgan explains that the problem is life can't spontaneously arise from non living chemicals. Life does not and cannot spontaneously generate from non-living chemicals. He goes on to say, ": “DNA can make neither proteins nor copies of itself without the help of catalytic proteins called enzymes. This fact turned the origin of life into a classic chicken-or-egg puzzle: Which came first, proteins or DNA?”. Horgan then alluded to outlandish claims made by Richard Dawkins and others who said that life on earth may have been seeded here by aliens. Of the alien "theory", Horgan says that serves to “push the problem of life’s origin into outer space. If life didn’t begin here, how did it begin out there?"

Horgan is exactly right when he says that scientists (read that “evolutionary scientists”) do not have a clue how life began. (There are thousands of creationist scientists who do have a clue). That being the case, the only truly “scientific” idea left would be to follow the evidence where it leads—to an intelligent, supernatural creator.

"In the beginning, God created

 

[MichaelCadry]

Michael despite what are probably innocent intentions what you have done is probably illegal, you've reproduced someone's copyrighted material in bulk without even an attempt at appearing "fair use" . You've literally ctrl-c and ctrl-v.

Not to mention this is unnecessarily spammy, you could have just posted a smaller excerpt, some comments about it and then linked the rest.

Dear Tyrathca,

Yes, I have innocent intentions and what I've done is probably Not Illegal. I only reproduced a couple pages of a long book. It is the entire chapter or essay. I have written a book myself and it has been in the downtown Phoenix Library since 2003. If someone wants to copy a chapter or Whatever out of my book, it is hardly illegal. I do have a copyright on it also. If anything, the author would probably be pleased to know that someone is sharing his book with others, which is also how I would feel.

I don't know how to Control-V or Control-C, nor do I know how to 'link.' It is fine with me. I do know how to navigate MS Word just fine, so it's okay. What I posted is hardly 'spammy.' I think you are just upset that I posted it! Are you a girl or a guy?!! You said you were not a witch. Are you a warlock? Just curious.

With Love,

Michael

 

[DavisBJ]

That's not quite accurate. There are about 3000 objects in those HDF pictures…

“Those HDF pictures”??? As far as what Enyart was talking about, “those” consists of a single image.

… and it would not be hard to label them.

What do you mean “label” them? Do you want a little “ID name tag” placed under each object in the HDF image, or perhaps some info about what it is? Be a bit more specific in what you think is lacking.

But you cannot find the information that labels each object.

Do you know that? Have you actually looked to see what information is available?

That is because there are a lot of discrepancies that don't follow the common descent narrative.

This is a new use of the term “common descent” in my experience. So far, previously when I was presented with that term, it was referring to Darwin’s theory of life descending from a common ancestor. How that applies to identifying what is seen in the HDF is beyond me.

Same as radiometric dating, any awkward information for the common descentists is glossed over.

Having spent my whole life in science, I am not even a teeny bit impressed by creationist accusations of wholesale deception and dishonesty in the scientific community. I would be very surprised if some of your friends/family/neighbors aren’t honest scientists and faithful Christians at the same time.

Don't believe me? Just find the link that labels everything in those pictures in laymen's terms instead of raw data.

Once again, what would you, as a layman, want to see in THAT (not “those”) picture as far as labels?

 

[Jonahdog]

Creationism provides the best explanation to the evidence.

Wrong you need to study harder for the next quiz

 

[MichaelCadry]

A copy to observe. This is the very first essay/chapter in the book. The title of this book is: evolution - The Greatest Deception in Modern History by Dr. Roger Gallop


Creation vs. Evolution

Evolutionists believe the Big Bang created the universe out of nothing 10–40 billion years ago; our solar system was formed 5 billion years ago; single-celled organisms formed from an unknown primordial inorganic soup 3–4 billion years ago; multi-cellular organisms slowly evolved 1 billion years ago; humans evolved from higher life forms 185,000 to 2 million years ago; and modern civilization emerged within the last 5,000–6,000 years. Creationists believe the straightforward interpretation of Scripture—the earth and all living things were supernaturally created in six solar days by the God of the Bible about 6,000 years ago.

Opinions about the origin of man, the earth, and the universe cannot be observed in the past or tested, and therefore cannot rely on empirical analysis—rather, beliefs about the past are based on present-day observations and interpretations. When geologists or anthropologists have only the end results of an event, a full reconstruction of the one-time ancient event is based on certain assumptions about the past. For example, the reconstruction of rock formations and fossils—what happened in the unobserved past—is based on conjecture and the assumption of evolution.

The difference between scientific creation and evolution is not over observational and present-day empirical scientific data, but rather over interpretation of data—for example, interpretations of observed geological land-forms (see section, Catastrophic Worldwide Flood). If one sets aside preconceived notions of old earth and evolutionary doctrine, the evidence in support of a Creator God is overwhelming.

It is important to understand that evolution has never been observed in animal populations or proven by empirical science. (See section, Biological Scientific Evidence for Creation and section, Fossil Dating.) Secular scientists simply assume evolution and old age as their foundation or premise for reconstruction—evolution and an old earth are assumed to be true. An individual fact is accepted or rejected as valid only if it fits the evolutionary model. The presumption of evolution exists in many science disciplines including biology, geology, astronomy, paleontology, and anthropology.

Secular scientists maintain that evolution is a legitimate 'science' and creation is a 'religion'. But ironically, most scientists agree that science is an organized body of knowledge in the form of 'testable' explanations or predictions (hypotheses) about the universe (all matter and energy) and theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based on hypotheses and verified multiple times by groups of independent researchers. Hypothesis is an educated guess based upon observation but has not been proved. At best, evolution is an unsubstantiated hypothesis. The bottom line, evolution does not meet the universally accepted definition of 'science' nor does it meet the definition of 'theory' or 'hypothesis'.

So why do scientists behave in such a manner—assume something is true when it cannot be proved and, in fact, it has never been observed? The simple answer is that the term “supernatural” or the concept of God or supernatural creation is considered to be outside the realm of real science. Life is here on earth, so secular scientists feel they must explain life “naturalistically”—consequently, they believe that evolutionary doctrine and ignoring data contrary to evolution is legitimate. Considering the heavens and the earth, and all that exists, how short-sighted and narrow-minded is such thinking? Secondarily, many modern scientists today are atheistic—a Divine Creator is inconceivable.

Evolution is a belief system that many, if not most, scientists assume as fact and routinely use to interpret their observations. Herein lies the classic problem with many scientists and the scientific community today.


Copyright © 2011 -2016, Red Butte Press, Inc. All rights reserved. Use Policy and Privacy Policy

By the way, the author of this book welcomes others to use pages of this book for copying for others. I will include different pages every day or every other day for your perusal. The next post I will make from this book is about The Great Flood. Thanks and much love from God and Me.

Michael

 

[Tyrathca]

Michael do you actually want to debate and defend the content of what you are copying?

 

[MichaelCadry]

Michael do you actually want to debate and defend the content of what you are copying?

Dear Tyrathca,

You never answered my question. Are you a practicing warlock?? I don't want to debate it, but I can defend much of it. I am not knowledgeable about certain parts of the essays. The chapters are for you all to sponge up and learn some truth.

Much Love & Warmest Regards,

Michael

 

[gcthomas]

Evolutionists believe the Big Bang created the universe out of nothing 10–40 billion years ago; ...

No, they don't. First, 'evolutionist' is an ill defined term and only used by creationists, and if it means anything it ought to refer to evolution. Cosmologists are not evolutionary scientists. Second, 'created out of nothing'*is what creationists believe, not scientists. (It's in the name, see? c-r-e-a-t-i-o-n-ists).

Hypothesising a cause that is not uniquely supported by evidence is not the same as 'from nothing'.

Evolution is a belief system that many, if not most, scientists assume as fact and routinely use to interpret their observations. Herein lies the classic problem with many scientists and the scientific community today

Evolution is trusted to be true because we have has 150 years of people trying to disprove it and uniformly failing. When a theory has withstood such a barrage of attacks from those who KNOW it is wrong and would love to be able to dislodge it from the canon of accepted factual descriptions of the world, then it can be trusted. Like any other area of trusted science (statistical thermodynamics, special relativity, the photon nature of light, the existence of electrons and so on) no-one with any actual insight into the science is going to waste time seriously questioning it. After 50 years of finding the world outside your front door you will stop wondering if it is still there each time you leave the house, eventually.

 

[alwight]

Dear Tyrathca,

You never answered my question. Are you a practicing warlock?? I don't want to debate it, but I can defend much of it. I am not knowledgeable about certain parts of the essays. The chapters are for you all to sponge up and learn some truth.

Much Love & Warmest Regards,

Michael

Michael there is absolutely no point to dragging something off the interwebs and expecting it to be read and somehow absorbed as a"Truth". If you can't make specific comments about specific points then no one will want to pull apart something you apparently don't find it necessary to understand yourself. If the author of that piece wanted to come here and discuss it then that would be very different.

 

[TheDuke]

As I explained earlier, some evolutionary biologists thought all pseudogenes were non-functional, others (e.g., panselectionists) thought they were functional. So geneticists, armed with the understanding of evolutionary common ancestry, did some research and they found very small percentage of pseudogenes have been co-opted for new functions. That's how science works.

....

Excellent work, mate.

Dunno, maybe you'll have some use for this

 

[Damiano]

No where in the Bible does it ever state that the days of Genesis are equivalent to "generation". You are making that up.

If the days of Genesis are equivalente to a generazione what does it change?

 

[TheDuke]

And... your comment about why they are called "pseudo" is based on evolutionary beliefs and lack of knowledge.
From "Pseudogenes and Their Evolution," Encyclopedia of Life Sciences {Podlaha and Zhang}
"The term 'pseudogene' was originally coined to describe a degenerated RNA- or protein-coding sequence that is incapable of being transcribed or translated into functional RNA or protein products.

So, go ahead and explain how this definition is any different from what I stated....

The key in this definition is that pseudogenes are biologically nonfunctional. However, in practice, it is virtually impossible to experimentally establish nonfunctionality; the lack of any observable phenotypic effect upon the deletion of a putative pseudogene does not necessarily mean that the deletion has no phenotypic effect, because the effect may be too subtle to observe. When more and more research groups are coming across cases where a so-called pseudogene is potentially involved in a meaningful biological interaction, primarily in gene regulation (Tam et al., 2008; Watanabe et al., 2008), it becomes increasingly difficult to define pseudogenes. Is it appropriate to call such noncoding yet functional sequences pseudogenes? This is where the boundaries of the pseudogene definition become hazy."

So what's your point? It's not up to either of us to determine the proper definition for pseudogenes with regulatory functions.
I actually agree with all of the above except that I'm not seeing how this contradicts the definition given before.... Pls, do explain.

“Pssst! Don’t Tell the Creationists, but Scientists Don’t Have a Clue How Life Began”, is an article in the Feb 2011 Scientific American.
...
That being the case, the only truly “scientific” idea left would be to follow the evidence where it leads—to an intelligent, supernatural creator.

Have you ever heard of a term called "red herring"?
It seems to be the natural reflex of creationists when they are cornered and I've really got so used to your dodging all the important questions I pose, that I honestly stopped caring.

I think this is more of a sport now, just to spot and disclose the fallacies and misrepresentation you guys spout.


For instance: You cite from an article by J.Horgan. Let's take a closer look (I bet you didn't bother reading it), shall we:

a) It's not published in the journal, but rather on the online blog

b) Horgan DIDN'T write THAT article 20 ya but a different one

c) The editor disagreed with the TITLE alone, and the article in question had been printed (with a different title)

d) The article doesn't even talk about evolution and barely mentions it

e) your quote-mine says nothing about the way how abiogenesis works, but merely states the obvious. In the article Horgan goes on to sum up the main hypothesis of how it can work

f) The entire article is in absolute direct contradiction to creationism

Here are some quotes from it to give you a teaser:
"After its formation 4.5 billion years ago, Earth was bombarded for millions of years by huge meteorites, which would have wiped out any fledgling organisms. Researchers have found evidence of microbial life dating back 3.5 billion years ago, suggesting that life emerged fairly quickly"

"at least scientists are making an honest effort to solve life's mystery instead of blaming it all on God."


g) It's good that even you figured to place your "scientific" conclusion in quotation marks. Repeating a mantra has never made it come true

 

[Jose Fly]

Rather than looking for things that they think may confirm their belief, they should look at all so called psuedogenes.

You still didn't answer the question (among many others in my last post that you just plain ignored): How did these geneticists know which genomes to compare, where to look, and what to look for?

Again... the article in Nature says they have MOSTLY been ignored. Fortunately SOME scientists set their beliefs aside to explore and research.

And as I showed in my last post, geneticists were proposing functions for pseudogenes as early as the 1970's, and were identifying functions for them in the early 2000's, as large-scale sequences became available for comparing across taxa.

It really played no role.

Directly contradicted by your own citation, which contains a section entitled "Evolution and Pseudogenes" as well as summarizes papers that directly state...

Through evolutionary analysis, we have identified candidate sequences for functional human transcribed pseudogenes, and have pinpointed 68 strong candidates for further investigation as potentially functional transcribed pseudogenes across multiple mammal species.​

If you read the article, you see they are trying to impose their beliefs onto the data.

You've set yourself up a pretty convenient framework, haven't you? You claim that evolution played no role in this research, and whenever the scientists say "evolution played a role in our research" you get to wave that away as them "imposing their beliefs". Not only is that convenient for you, it's incredibly dishonest.

Kinda makes me wonder....what exactly do you think their work was based on, if not evolutionary theory?

From the article..."Analysis of conserved transcribed pseudogenes shows that ∼50% are indeed conserved across millions of years of primate evolution"
In other words 50% is not conserved, same as Encode reported about so called "junk" DNA. They found this result surprising. "Surprisingly, many functional elements are seemingly unconstrained across mammalian evolution. This suggests the possibility of a large pool of neutral elements that are biochemically active but provide no specific benefit to the organism. This pool may serve as a 'warehouse' for natural selection, potentially acting as the source of lineage-specific elements and functionally conserved but non-orthologous elements between species."

Ok.

There you go... They are surprised at the NOT conserved.

Um.....ok.

Also from the same article.... Speaking of the NOT conserved "junk" DNA..."This is perhaps the biggest surprise of the pilot phase of the ENCODE Pilot Project, and suggests that we take a more ‘neutral’ view of many of the functions conferred by the genome.”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v447/n7146/full/nature05874.html

Sounds good.

An intelligent Creator... like the God of the Bible... or any other designer, will likely use similar parts to perform similar functions.

So if we find different "parts" being used to perform similar functions, that would be evidence against God?

The similarity is evidence of intelligence.

Then dissimilarity is evidence against intelligence, correct?

 

[Jose Fly]

Excellent work, mate.

Dunno, maybe you'll have some use for this

Thanks! That's a great paper, and addresses another topic 6days and I discussed. :up: