Creation vs. Evolution

[Rosenritter]

Wait...At this point they usually argue a lizard population rapidly evolved cecal valves.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm

If this is what I am thinking of the DNA of the lizards remained unchanged between the original and test population, but rather the organism manifested itself differently in a different environment. The website I am reading calls it "evolution" but the actual creature building instruction set remained the same. It looks more like the DNA had some "if-then" statements built in rather than being simply linear programming.

 

[gcthomas]

So if a solid object like a hammer flew sideways across the room, you would say that was spontaneous, and covered by your understanding of Physics? I'm guessing that's not what you meant, but how would anything "spontaneous" under your model there be any more explainable?

That is what I meant. But objects as large as hammers have enough internal thermal interactions that spontaneous events are usually limited to individual particles within the hammer.

I am describing quantum events, of course, and although large objects can experience spontaneous events, it is usually confined to subatomic particles. So, for example, the radioactive decay of an atom is entirely and demonstrably spontaneous, with no specific triggering cause. Photons of light form continuously in empty space for no reason beyond random chance, and these photons can be measured from the pressure they exert on surfaces.

The big bang theory, as you must know, proposes a very specific expanding subatomic particle-sized seed for the universe. Since time as we know it started at that event, there was no time preceding the event to allow for a cause, since caused occur before effects, and there was no time before. A spontaneous, quantum event.

 

[gcthomas]

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm

If this is what I am thinking of the DNA of the lizards remained unchanged between the original and test population, but rather the organism manifested itself differently in a different environment. The website I am reading calls it "evolution" but the actual creature building instruction set remained the same. It looks more like the DNA had some "if-then" statements built in rather than being simply linear programming.

If you think the DNA remained unchanged in this study, I think you need to read it again.

 

[MichaelCadry]

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm

If this is what I am thinking of the DNA of the lizards remained unchanged between the original and test population, but rather the organism manifested itself differently in a different environment. The website I am reading calls it "evolution" but the actual creature building instruction set remained the same. It looks more like the DNA had some "if-then" statements built in rather than being simply linear programming.

Dear Rosen,

I hope that I'm not intruding here, but surely you must know that God is the one who changes a genome, DNA, proton, gene, RNA, electron, etc. as the living creature needs it. He has many helpers, His angels, and they all communicate with Him, letting Him know when a change is needed. Then He steps in and fixes the problem so that the organism can survive the subtle or drastic changes that need to occur. God is the Great Chemist, Biologist, Archaeologist, and Creator. His imagination knows no end. He is marvelous and doesn't leave His creatures, plants, insects, animals and man in the lurch, helping them to readily adapt. No, don't call it evolution. That's just some way of persons to steal God's Thunder!!

And also, I guess I can't keep the secret any longer. Everyone wonders why I think God, Jesus, angels and Satan talk to me. There is a good reason. You won't believe me because you'd have to hear it from God, rather than me, but take heart; He shall prove me in the end. So I guess I'll just blurt it out.

It just so happens all of our paths crossed, and probably for good reason. The Lord helped me find this website -- TOL -- and so then I could reach a lot more people at once. I also reach other people around the globe. You don't know all that I am busy with. This TOL is a means of helping people, which is what I try to do. God drove you all here and He drove me here too!! Thank God for giving us the Internet, which otherwise, none of this could even happen. Regardless of whether I've made a couple mistakes, it doesn't matter. I will tell you and you don't have to believe me until later. Sound fair?

The Lord told me that I am one of two witnesses written of in Rev. 11:3,4KJV. "These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the Earth." "And I will give power to my two witnesses and they shall prophecy..." No, I am not sure of who the other witness is. That's God's Trump Card. Okay, so now you know why I upset people, like DavisBJ and Silent Hunter. You know why I always knock them down. You know why others seem to like me. It is because God is with them and they are curious about me. Okay, that's all I have to say for the time being. Now you know why I hear the Lord's voice and the angels. I've been deceived twice since coming here, but the deception didn't last long. So basically, the devil hasn't deceived me permanently. I can't get it right every time. I AM NOT JESUS! I don't do Perfect, or Sin-free, or not mistake-free, or heal people. I could go on. I am not going to be anyone's intermediator between God and you all.

I do the best I can, and I do pray for you all on my knees every night. God has been very good to me and helps me with everything. I also have been visited by the Holy Ghost twice. It is the best thing I've ever been through, or at least tied with the first time the Lord spoke to me. Like I said, there's a lot about me that none of you know.

Oh well, so now you know. There's a reason why I hear the Lord God, and the Lord Jesus, and the angels, etc. Will close for now. You don't have to believe me. Just wait and see what happens.

Very Sincerely And With God's Love,

Michael

 

[gcthomas]

You could select from dog DNA forever and get a ridiculous Chihuahua but you couldn't turn it into a cat like that. We can observe natural selection but it won't evolve something into something else. That's what I was asking for.

This, ^^^^, is VERY funny!

:rotfl:

 

[Tyrathca]

This, ^^^^, is VERY funny!

:rotfl:

Next he'll ask for a crocoduck!

 

[Rosenritter]

That is what I meant. But objects as large as hammers have enough internal thermal interactions that spontaneous events are usually limited to individual particles within the hammer.

I am describing quantum events, of course, and although large objects can experience spontaneous events, it is usually confined to subatomic particles. So, for example, the radioactive decay of an atom is entirely and demonstrably spontaneous, with no specific triggering cause. Photons of light form continuously in empty space for no reason beyond random chance, and these photons can be measured from the pressure they exert on surfaces.

The big bang theory, as you must know, proposes a very specific expanding subatomic particle-sized seed for the universe. Since time as we know it started at that event, there was no time preceding the event to allow for a cause, since caused occur before effects, and there was no time before. A spontaneous, quantum event.

OK. Thanks for explanation. But a question, you talk of big bang as if it happened for sure rather than theory. However, the matter of universe is clumped, with empty space not appearing like distribution from a random explosion. But, if you are thinking of the universe starting with an unexplained event all at once, how would that be much different from me believing that it was created all at once?

 

[Rosenritter]

If you think the DNA remained unchanged in this study, I think you need to read it again.

No, that's even what they said. I didn't think they would admit that but they did.

That was an example of a pre programmed adaptation. A different kind of creature didn't emerge. Those features expressed themselves when conditions warranted it.

 

[Cross Reference]

Has anyone here ever considered the makeup of a humming bird and how it is that evolution cannot account for it?

 

[gcthomas]

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm

If this is what I am thinking of the DNA of the lizards remained unchanged between the original and test population, but rather the organism manifested itself differently in a different environment. The website I am reading calls it "evolution" but the actual creature building instruction set remained the same. It looks more like the DNA had some "if-then" statements built in rather than being simply linear programming.

The actual paper describes that only fragments of two genes of the mitochondrial DNA was tested, in order to see if the lizards were descended from the introduces lizards or the aboriginal variety. The tests were not intended, and unable, to measure changes in the nuclear DNA. The mDNA was not necessarily identical to the original lizards, but the two gene fragments analysed were close enough to uniquely identify their correct heritage. There was not study of the nuclear DNA inherited from both parents that actually builds the creatures.

The paper is here. It is best not to rely on journalist summaries of technical papers if you intend to (mis)use the research in a way that the authors would disagree with.

 

[Cross Reference]

Next he'll ask for a crocoduck!

Why shouldn't they believe that? It is what you all espouse.

 

[gcthomas]

OK. Thanks for explanation. But a question, you talk of big bang as if it happened for sure rather than theory.

I used the phrase "big bang theory", so I couldn't be accused of hiding the 'theory' nature of it. But of course, 'theory' is the highest accolade a science hypothesis can hope to attain as multiple lines of evidence and other theories support it time and again.

However, the matter of universe is clumped, with empty space not appearing like distribution from a random explosion. But, if you are thinking of the universe starting with an unexplained event all at once, how would that be much different from me believing that it was created all at once?

Characterising the big bang as an explosion rather than an expansion is always likely to lead you down unjustified paths of thought and assumptions. Exploding objects commonly have a pre-existing, large scale structure that influences the pattern of the diverging parts, but the universe that we see expanded from a tiny, unstructured and rather homogeneous beginning. Inflationary theory explains the smoothness (homogeneity) of the universe as seen in different directions (isotropy), if you are interested in looking it up.

 

[patrick jane]

God created all things through Jesus Christ

Colossians 1:16 KJV -

 

[6days]

The big bang theory, as you must know, proposes a very specific expanding subatomic particle-sized seed for the universe.

So this unintelligent 'seed' existed eternally, uncaused, and created everything?
The Big God theory as you know proposes a very intelligent, all powerful Creator who existed uncaused eternally.

 

[6days]

Why shouldn't they believe that? It is what you all espouse.

Haha.... So true. They mock if someone says 'Why aren't there transitional alive that are between man and monkey'.....or suggest that they believe a cat can evolve into a dog.... And yet that is what they espouse.
They claim if they are given enough chances and enough time, stardust can turn into a Hollywood star.

 

[6days]

The actual paper describes that only fragments of two genes of the mitochondrial DNA was tested, in order to see if the lizards were descended from the introduces lizards or the aboriginal variety. The tests were not intended, and unable, to measure changes in the nuclear DNA. The mDNA was not necessarily identical to the original lizards, but the two gene fragments analysed were close enough to uniquely identify their correct heritage. There was not study of the nuclear DNA inherited from both parents that actually builds the creatures.

The paper is here. It is best not to rely on journalist summaries of technical papers if you intend to (mis)use the research in a way that the authors would disagree with.

Since other lizard populations have cecal valves, it is quite logical the genetics were already there for this valve. A genetic switch may have been turned on when the need arose for this valve in the new environment. That would be quite an intelligent design.

 

[6days]

Has anyone here ever considered the makeup of a humming bird and how it is that evolution cannot account for it?

They are amazing. Intelligently created.
Not only can't evolution explain hummingbirds, but it can't even explain a hummingbird gene.

 

[Jose Fly]

I think you might have them confused.

Then you'd be wrong.

We can observe natural selection

And we observe populations evolving....every single day. It's so trivially easy to observe, undergrad students do it in lab experiments all across the world.

but that only reduces the genetic pool that already exists for that creature.

Yes, but each new generation contains a host of new variability for selection to act on. For example, each human contains over 100 new mutations.

Evolution would require the opposite, that is, previously unknown data for structure would need to be added, not deleted.

Again, that's the role of mutations.

I'm getting the strong impression that you really don't know the basics of evolutionary biology. Have you ever taken an introductory college course in it, or read a scholarly book on it?

You could select from dog DNA forever and get a ridiculous Chihuahua but you couldn't turn it into a cat like that.

Turning a dog into a cat would be magic, not evolution.

We can observe natural selection but it won't evolve something into something else. That's what I was asking for.

Just like "one kind of creature" (which I asked you to define and you ignored), "something else" is too vague to be of any use. It kinda looks to me like you're just in pure denial mode without even understanding what it is you're denying.

 

[Jose Fly]

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm

If this is what I am thinking of the DNA of the lizards remained unchanged between the original and test population, but rather the organism manifested itself differently in a different environment.

Where did you get that idea from?

 

[gcthomas]

So this unintelligent 'seed' existed eternally, uncaused, and created everything?

Nope. Please re-read what I wrote, and try again.

The Big God theory as you know proposes a very intelligent, all powerful Creator who existed uncaused eternally.

This is not a quantitative hypothesis, and as such can be moulded to fit any and all observations, rendering it unusable for making predictions. Hence, it is unscientific.