Creation vs. Evolution

[Rosenritter]

Go to just about any decent undergraduate BIO 101 class and you'll see them do lab experiments where they evolve resistant strains of bacteria (some even do genetic analyses).

As far as "worshiping"....when you're ready to behave like an intelligent adult let us know.

You are getting confused again. That would be simulation of natural selection that you are thinking of. The gene pool gets smaller, not more diverse.

Silly evolutionists.

 

[Jose Fly]

You are getting confused again. That would be simulation of natural selection that you are thinking of.

Again, you should really take the time to understand a subject before trying to debate it. The common experiment illustrates, in real time, a population evolving a new trait (antibiotic resistance).

I mean....you do understand that observing evolution and selection can both occur at the same time, right?

The gene pool gets smaller, not more diverse.

It does? How do you know?

 

[6days]

Of course evolution can be tested, and it is tested daily.

Fallacy of equivocation.
If by the word evolution you mean observation of natural selection or testing mutation rates you are correct.( And those are consistent with the Biblical account)
However, you likely are referring to to your common ancestry belief system which can't be observed or tested... and is inconsistent with the evidence.

Right from the beginning, Darwin predicted the existence of ancestral human remains in Africa long before they were discovered.

True... and that explains the long history of false and shoddy conclusions by evolutionists. They have attempted to make men out of 'monkeys' and monkeys out of men.

Evolution predicts that phylogenetic trees will have the same structure no matter what characteristics are measured, a prediction shown to be true again and again.

Darwins phylogenetic tree has fallen. It has been redrawn hundreds of times.
"Charles Darwin's "tree of life", which shows how species are related through evolutionary history, is wrong and needs to be replaced, according to leading scientists". https://www.theguardian.com/science/2009/jan/21/charles-darwin-evolution-species-tree-life

A classic that has been given in this forum several times is that you'll never find rabbit fossils in, say, Jurassic strata. Find one and evolution is in trouble.

By that logic evolutionists claimed coelacanths went extinct 70 million years ago. The lack of human fossils in coelacanth layers does not mean that they lived on earth millions of years apart. It does mean that evolutionists jumped to wrong conclusions based on their belief system.

 

[Rosenritter]

Again, you should really take the time to understand a subject before trying to debate it. The common experiment illustrates, in real time, a population evolving a new trait (antibiotic resistance).

I mean....you do understand that observing evolution and selection can both occur at the same time, right?



It does? How do you know?

The species isn't evolving a new trait, you are just killing off all the ones that don't exhibit the trait. The trait was already there or else none of them would survive.

If Hitler kills off everyone without blue eyes, the population has not "evolved" blue eyes. If Hitler kills off everyone without blue hair, everyone is dead.

 

[Jose Fly]

The species isn't evolving a new trait, you are just killing off all the ones that don't exhibit the trait. The trait was already there or else none of them would survive.

See, this is the problem with trying to debate something you didn't even bother to learn about. None of what you just said is at all relevant to the experiment I mentioned.

So right now I'd really like to know....why are you denying and debating an experiment, when you don't even know what that experiment is?

 

[Jose Fly]

However, you likely are referring to to your common ancestry belief system which can't be observed or tested... and is inconsistent with the evidence.

Don't assume everyone shares your ignorance. There have been a number of tests of common ancestry. Here's one just for starters: A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry.

And just recently a team of scientists used genetic data to test human/primate common ancestry against humans arising separately: Statistical evidence for common ancestry: New tests of universal ancestry. Their results?

"We find overwhelming evidence against separate ancestry and in favor of common ancestry for orders and families of primates. We also find overwhelming evidence that humans share a common ancestor with other primate species."​

Time for you to go into deny, deny, deny mode 6days. :chuckle:

 

[6days]

The common experiment illustrates, in real time, a population evolving a new trait (antibiotic resistance).

Anti-biotic resistance to drugs seems to be hardwired into the bacterias DNA... evidence it did not evolve.
http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/...-Bacteria-Found-in-Untouched-Cave-041212.aspx

I mean....you do understand that observing evolution and selection can both occur at the same time, right?

We do understand that evolutionists equivocate on terms trying to sell their common ancestry beliefs. We do understand how selection, adaptation, genetic drift, etc are consisistent within the Biblical account.

The gene pool gets smaller, not more diverse.

It does? How do you know?

Science.
Natural selection eliminates (sometimes); it does not create. Mutations destroy and corrupt....evolutionism has no creative savior.

 

[6days]

And just recently a team of scientists used genetic data to test human/primate common ancestry against humans arising separate

Again, you should really take the time to understand a subject before trying to debate it. And....don't assume everyone shares your ignorance. (Quote mined, ha)

Jose.... your argument is nonsense. They start with the conclusion then try make the evidence fit. ( Many of these atheist belief arguments have been overturned by science) I once read an article on the atheist website 'talkorigins', and quoted from it in TOL, where even they ( the author) said your argument was poor. The article said similarity can also be explained by a common designer.

 

[Jose Fly]

Anti-biotic resistance to drugs seems to be hardwired into the bacterias DNA... evidence it did not evolve.

Then you, like Rosenritter before you, are denying an experiment even though you don't know how the experiment was conducted. I'll give you a hint....look up "single clone strain" and think about how using such a strain in the experiment necessitates that the population with the resistance evolved. And as I mentioned before, in the better-run schools you get to document the genetic change that led to the new trait, which essentially proves the conclusion.

http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/...-Bacteria-Found-in-Untouched-Cave-041212.aspx

First, the link doesn't work. Second, just because resistance to one antibiotic can be found in the wild doesn't mean, "Therefore, all other instances of antibiotic resistance are hard-wired". Again, the controlled setting of the experiment I described is proof positive that the trait evolved.

We do understand how selection, adaptation, genetic drift, etc are consisistent within the Biblical account.

Where are those mentioned in the Bible? Chapter and verse please.

Science.

Non-answer.

Natural selection eliminates (sometimes); it does not create. Mutations destroy and corrupt....evolutionism has no creative savior.

All empty assertions directly negated by the observed and documented evolution that takes place in university labs all across the world.

 

[Jose Fly]

Again, you should really take the time to understand a subject before trying to debate it. And....don't assume everyone shares your ignorance. (Quote mined, ha)

Yeah....your persistent and unrepentant dishonesty is hilarious.

They start with the conclusion then try make the evidence fit.

That's a pretty serious charge against the authors of the study. Do you have any actual evidence to substantiate it? Or are you just slinging mud again?

( Many of these atheist belief arguments have been overturned by science)

What does atheism have to do with any of this?

I once read an article on the atheist website 'talkorigins', and quoted from it in TOL, where even they ( the author) said your argument was poor. The article said similarity can also be explained by a common designer.

Absolutely 100% irrelevant to the point of the post, i.e., that when you said common ancestry couldn't be tested, you were wrong as evidenced by the papers I posted. Of course as we see above, you again go into deny, deny, deny mode and just make yourself look even more ridiculous.

 

[Rosenritter]

Then you, like Rosenritter before you, are denying an experiment even though you don't know how the experiment was conducted. I'll give you a hint....look up "single clone strain" and think about how using such a strain in the experiment necessitates that the population with the resistance evolved. And as I mentioned before, in the better-run schools you get to document the genetic change that led to the new trait, which essentially proves the conclusion.



First, the link doesn't work. Second, just because resistance to one antibiotic can be found in the wild doesn't mean, "Therefore, all other instances of antibiotic resistance are hard-wired". Again, the controlled setting of the experiment I described is proof positive that the trait evolved.



Where are those mentioned in the Bible? Chapter and verse please.



Non-answer.



All empty assertions directly negated by the observed and documented evolution that takes place in university labs all across the world.

So these bacteria evolved into ... Bacteria. I bet I could even guess what type of bacteria. I guess... The same type of bacteria. That's amazing. They started as bacteria and didn't produce a new type of organism. Just a flavor of the same. Wow.

 

[Jose Fly]

So these bacteria evolved into ... Bacteria. I bet I could even guess what type of bacteria. I guess... The same type of bacteria. That's amazing. They started as bacteria and didn't produce a new type of organism. Just a flavor of the same. Wow.

You do understand that "bacteria" is an entire domain, don't you? So if you think the term "new type of organism" only applies when it evolves an entire new domain, then.....well....let's just say you're being ridiculous.

But your and 6days' responses do serve to illustrate the reason why I generally don't bother showing and explaining science to creationists. Like I analogized, it's like trying to convince a Jew that eating shrimp is ok. Both are rather pointless because your audience goes into it already convinced that you have to be wrong, no matter what. Throw in the high emotional stakes that come with the religious baggage and we end up here. As soon as I mention the science, you scramble around looking for excuses to make it go away and not think about it.

 

[gcthomas]

Except I've seen the pictures, and those weren't poorly formed tracks, and those tracks were visible when they first peeled back the rock layers. Nice try, but a recantation from one person doesn't actually erase the evidence. I don't see you recanting when an evolutionist reverses his opinion, do I?

As an aside, why do you yourself set a limitation that "dinosaurs plus humans at same time" would be death to your theory? That seems like a totally unnecessary limitation. Plus you then have issues to deal with like dinosaurs on Roman artifacts, Babylonian writings, Inca carvings, the carcass that washed up on the California Beach that was on the cover of Skin and Diver magazine, so on and so forth. This wouldn't be the first time that evolutionists would have to backtrack and say "Guess it survived for millions of years" like with the live coelacanth.

Since you won't volunteer one of your claims here for inspection, I picked the Californian carcass: http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2008/07/08/moores-beach-monster/

Seems to be a whale, according to the California Academy of Sciences. Not a dinosaur or plesiosaur then.

Which shall I dispose of next?

 

[Rosenritter]

Since you won't volunteer one of your claims here for inspection, I picked the Californian carcass: http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2008/07/08/moores-beach-monster/

Seems to be a whale, according to the California Academy of Sciences. Not a dinosaur or plesiosaur then.

Which shall I dispose of next?

You are honestly telling me that you can look at that and you see a whale? Whales don't have long thin necks. It was examined back when the carcass was present and that was not a whale. I'm sorry that it pops another hole in your evolution theory, but deal with it.

"After thoroughly examining the carcass, the renowned naturalist E. L. Wallace concluded that the creature could not be a whale and might be a plesiosaur that had been preserved and subsequently melted out of glacial ice."

I could understand a rationalization of "couldn't be" from your side thinking that maybe something had been frozen in ice all that time and broken loose, but that most certainly is not a whale.

Does these look like whales to you also?

No one made those while looking at something that broke out of thawed ice. I guess the Incas didn't have to worry about maintaining a state-supported theory of evolution to keep getting grants and recognition, so they drew what they saw around them. I don't think hey did grand archeological digs and reconstructed bones to make models back then...

 

[6days]

Anti-biotic resistance to drugs seems to be hardwired into the bacterias DNA... evidence it did not evolve.

Then you, like Rosenritter before you, are denying an experiment even though you don't know how the experiment was conducted.

Oh my Jose.... you seem to anger so easily. No experiment was denied. What I said was "Anti-biotic resistance to drugs seems to be hardwired into the bacterias DNA". The resistance may be there initially, or it may 'evolve' from pre-existing information and mechanisms. For example we know bacteria can adapt to a new environment through a mutation causing a loss of specificity.

Second, just because resistance to one antibiotic can be found in the wild doesn't mean, "Therefore, all other instances of antibiotic resistance are hard-wired".

Well..... it isn't just one example or one antibiotic. And 'second'...i did not say "therefore all....."

We do understand how selection, adaptation, genetic drift, etc are consisistent within the Biblical account.

Where are those mentioned in the Bible? Chapter and verse please.

The Biblical creation and fall account is found in the first few books of the Bible.

Science....Natural selection eliminates (sometimes); it does not create. Mutations destroy and corrupt....evolutionism has no creative savior.

Non-answer.
All empty assertions directly negated by the observed and documented evolution that takes place in university labs all across the world.

What I said is correct. Natural selection is incapable of creating...it only eliminates...and only sometimes. Natural selection is an impotent savior of a false belief system.

They start with the conclusion (common ancestry) then try make the evidence fit.

That's a pretty serious charge against the authors of the study. Do you have any actual evidence to substantiate it? Or are you just slinging mud again?

To quote an angry TOL member... "you should really take the time to understand a subject before trying to debate it. And....don't assume everyone shares your ignorance.
Yeah....your persistent and unrepentant dishonesty is hilarious. "
Jose... sometimes it seems your anger fogs your reasoning. A scientist who is writing how genetic evidence does not support common ancestry...or does support it starts with the conclusion. If you think anyone approaches the topic as a blank slate, then you must be blinded by your 'religion'.

 

[Jose Fly]

Oh my Jose.... you seem to anger so easily.

Anger? "Bemused" is a much more accurate description.

No experiment was denied. What I said was "Anti-biotic resistance to drugs seems to be hardwired into the bacterias DNA". The resistance may be there initially, or it may 'evolve' from pre-existing information and mechanisms.

Again, the experiment I mentioned addresses all that via using a single-clone strain, thereby demonstrating that the resistance trait evolved. This is later confirmed by looking at and comparing sequences from the parental and evolved strains.

For example we know bacteria can adapt to a new environment through a mutation causing a loss of specificity.

Ah yes, another one of your heads-I-win, tails-you-lose setups, i.e., if a population evolves a specialized, specific trait they've lost variability (which is bad), but if they evolve a more generalized trait they've lost specificity (which is bad).

How dishonest of you.

Well..... it isn't just one example or one antibiotic. And 'second'...i did not say "therefore all....."

Noted.

The Biblical creation and fall account is found in the first few books of the Bible.

Chapter and verse where "selection, adaptation, genetic drift, etc" are mentioned.

What I said is correct. Natural selection is incapable of creating...it only eliminates...and only sometimes.

No one has said "natural selection creates". That's the rule of mutations. So either you are astoundingly ignorant of the most basic elements of biology, or you are guilty of arguing via straw man.

A scientist who is writing how genetic evidence does not support common ancestry...or does support it starts with the conclusion. If you think anyone approaches the topic as a blank slate, then you must be blinded by your 'religion'.

So you accuse the authors of the study of unethical behavior even though you have absolutely nothing to substantiate it.

Again we see how, when it comes to this subject, you have neither morals nor shame.

 

[Rosenritter]

I always know that Jose is screaming and blinded by anger because that's what his avatar picture shows. That and the constant accusations seem to reinforce the image. Like where he will take a statement, turn it into something else that wasn't said, then say "How dishonest of you." Then there's the "ignorant" charge which has become boring. "You have neither morals nor shame." Which ironically all that compiled together to prove the point he was railing against, that people aren't approaching these questions with blank slates.

 

[Jose Fly]

I always know that Jose is screaming and blinded by anger because that's what his avatar picture shows.

:rotfl:

Then I guess you're a dark figure, lurking in the shadows, and hiding from the world behind the hair over your face.

Like where he will take a statement, turn it into something else that wasn't said, then say "How dishonest of you."

Example?

Then there's the "ignorant" charge which has become boring.

I agree. Maybe one day I'll come across a creationist who understands the subject they're trying to debate, but I'm not holding my breath.

"You have neither morals nor shame."

That's right...6days has neither.

Which ironically all that compiled together to prove the point he was railing against, that people aren't approaching these questions with blank slates.

No one said anything about anyone being a "blank slate".

So do either one of you have an actual rebuttal specific to the papers I linked to? Or were you just hoping that your baseless accusations against the authors would distract everyone from their conclusions?

 

[Jonahdog]

You are honestly telling me that you can look at that and you see a whale? Whales don't have long thin necks. It was examined back when the carcass was present and that was not a whale. I'm sorry that it pops another hole in your evolution theory, but deal with it.

"After thoroughly examining the carcass, the renowned naturalist E. L. Wallace concluded that the creature could not be a whale and might be a plesiosaur that had been preserved and subsequently melted out of glacial ice."

I could understand a rationalization of "couldn't be" from your side thinking that maybe something had been frozen in ice all that time and broken loose, but that most certainly is not a whale.

Does these look like whales to you also?

http://creationists.org/j316/stones/incastone01x.jpg

http://creationists.org/j316/stones/incastone02x.jpg

[url]http://creationists.org/j316/stones/incastone03x.jpg
[/URL]
No one made those while looking at something that broke out of thawed ice. I guess the Incas didn't' have to worry about maintaining a state-supported theory of evolution, so they drew what they saw around them. I don't think hey did grand archeological digs and reconstructed bones to make models back then...

Apparently it was a Baird's beaked whale.
But since you appear to give credence to the Inca stones---never mind---just let us know when you have the background to play with the grownups.

 

[Rosenritter]

Apparently it was a Baird's beaked whale.
But since you appear to give credence to the Inca stones---never mind---just let us know when you have the background to play with the grownups.

Yet the naturalist that was there disagrees with you. The photo disagrees with you on its face. Your decision is not based on additional evidence but rather by necessity.

And before it was said that cave paintings of something vague wouldn't work if they could be confused with something else. Something like that. Those images aren't vague at all... Just playing by the rules.