Evolution... Do we believe?

[rainee]

Ok I'm getting back on my feet - but I'm not kidding, the shootings happening are getting me down. I try to be witty happy anything up and then find out someone is doing something horrifying and ruinous to themselves and others.

Hmm... well, I've had reason to feel that way about you, sometimes.

Well that should be the opening to a stand up routine, Barbarian!
Please, you don't have to worry about returning a compliment, I was telling the truth, it mattered to remember good truths to me at the time...and so I'm one of those who figures God gave me a tongue for a reason! And I hope you know what you teach me may not be at all what you want someone to learn, lol.

It can also mean "true." Which is the meaning of "eukaryote." True nucleus. Prokaryotes have "nucleoids" which are somewhat like a real nucleus, in that the DNA is there.

Sir unless you want kids on the internet to doubt their science books at school and their dictionaries as well you might want to go easy on redefining meanings, yes?

Complexity or size of genome is not a necessary consequence of evolution.

You are going to stop there?? And are you already under another definition of Evo? Evolution does not take credit for change anymore?
What does?

There is a lot of functional non-coding DNA, but some of it just hasn't been adapted for anything.

Or it no longer works after damage or losing something? Or maybe you would like the idea that it was no longer useful enough to fully get passed on??

Well, as Gould points out, if you start with prokaryotes (first identifiable organisms) then it has to get more complex for a while at least.

That makes sense. But think about that. If I understand it makes sense to assume you have to build up from simple - why does making sense mean that is how it went? Why would a Creator have to do it that way?

But there's no guarantee. There are tiny, incredibly simple cells that are obligate parasites, and are certainly less complex than those first bacteria.

Well I know nothing about this above but think about this: simple to complex makes scientists think mammary glands came from sweat glands.
And, Barbarian, think what this really means...

It means disposing of waste was turned to a reproductive essential for mammals in the minds of smart men -
Totally unperturbed by the idea most mammals don't sweat and dispose of waste in a very complicated way as well as eating and digesting is what required it... Yikes.

Simply because so much of it codes for things that didn't exist in those first organisms.

Well is that a bit of circular thinking? What was really required by a Creator? You see? The option is untouchable but possible maybe.

It's a clever idea, and a lot of people have discussed it. But with so much sequencing of DNA going on, it's apparently not a viable hypothesis now.

ok...

Remember the Y2K panic? I knew some COBOL guys who had all the work they wanted, fixing up ancient systems that had been patched with all sorts of ad hoc changes (and little or no documentation). Because of all those changes, many systems were no longer compatible with fixes that were universal before so many "mutations" were implemented.

Well that above explains working strands becoming non working over time very beautifully for humans. Should I be sorry?

So, each bank, each payroll program had to be carefully checked and tested to see what had to be done to go to 4-digit years, without crashing something else. "Genetically", they had evolved to the point where "genes" weren't interchangeable.

Ok. Great. I still love it...

After the prokaryote division, even the DNA code was no longer quite universal.

Oh my word. Did you just give me something else? Sir, I don't think all things came from one thing - I don't think euks came from proks...
Now I am sorry - but truthful points should count against if others appear to support for...

So your hypothesis isn't far off the mark, although in a way outside of your conclusion.

Does this mean you think our inability to make our own Vit C means we are related to chimps?
Or that our having the broken mechanism required to make Vit C shows we could have done things in the past we can't do now?

I hope we remain friends, and need not worry about who is most indebted.

I hope we don't throw cream pies at each other if we ever get to meet... Or well.. Would that be so bad, Barbarian?

 

[6days]

Rising from the dead after 3 days is also a physical impossibility, without God. But we believe based on the truth of His Word.

The big difference between those two events is that only one has been disproven, and quite easily at that.*

True... science has proven that dead bodies rapidly decay and do not come back to life after 3 days.

But we believe because God's tells us. We believe based on the truth of scripture, and not based on attempts to disprove the resurrection.

 

[Kdall]

The big difference between those two events is that only one has been disproven, and quite easily at that. Across all different fields of science, we can find that the universe is far older than the sun, and that the sun is far older than the Earth, and that the Earth is far older than 6000 years.

Meanwhile, a resurrection event cannot be proven, but it also cannot be disproven, and it has more substantial literature backing it up than does the Genesis creation story. So you're comparing apples and oranges here

True... science has proven that dead bodies rapidly decay and do not come back to life after 3 days.

But we believe because God's tells us. We believe based on the truth of scripture, and not based on attempts to disprove the resurrection.

I think I more than answered you sufficiently the first time.

 

[User Name]

True... science has proven that dead bodies rapidly decay and do not come back to life after 3 days.

But we believe because God's tells us. We believe based on the truth of scripture, and not based on attempts to disprove the resurrection.

Science can no more prove young earth creationism than it can the Resurrection, but if you want to believe in young earth creationism because you think that scripture says that, then have at it.

 

[Jose Fly]

Well, that's another interesting thing about 6days' posts. From what I can tell, he believes that creationism isn't a science, but is rather "a belief about the past".

If that's so, then there's no point in trying to evaluate it or discuss it from a scientific standpoint, right?

 

[Kdall]

Well, that's another interesting thing about 6days' posts. From what I can tell, he believes that creationism isn't a science, but is rather "a belief about the past".

If that's so, then there's no point in trying to evaluate it or discuss it from a scientific standpoint, right?

But he also mistakenly claims that evolution, and in truth all science, is based purely on opinions and as such is no more reliable than Genesis. A massive error that he has no interest in correcting

 

[Jose Fly]

But he also mistakenly claims that evolution, and in truth all science, is based purely on opinions and as such is no more reliable than Genesis. A massive error that he has no interest in correcting

Well yeah, but really......who cares (beyond it being something to entertain oneself with by arguing)?

Let's not forget the status of things in the real world here. Evolutionary biology isn't going anywhere. It's been the unifying framework for the life sciences for well over a century, teaching it in schools is supported by every scientific organization that's gone on record, and it continues to generate very useful results (e.g., figuring out genetic function).

OTOH, creationism hasn't contributed a thing to science in at least a century and no scientific organization supports it being taught in schools (many have gone on record against such a thing).

Nothing anyone ever says in this forum will ever change any of that. If 6days and other creationists here truly believe evolutionary biology isn't a science and should be treated the same way creationism is now, they have a huge amount of work to do. And posting their beliefs at ToL isn't going to accomplish a single thing.

 

[Kdall]

Well yeah, but really......who cares (beyond it being something to entertain oneself with by arguing)?

Let's not forget the status of things in the real world here. Evolutionary biology isn't going anywhere. It's been the unifying framework for the life sciences for well over a century, teaching it in schools is supported by every scientific organization that's gone on record, and it continues to generate very useful results (e.g., figuring out genetic function).

OTOH, creationism hasn't contributed a thing to science in at least a century and no scientific organization supports it being taught in schools (many have gone on record against such a thing).

Nothing anyone ever says in this forum will ever change any of that. If 6days and other creationists here truly believe evolutionary biology isn't a science and should be treated the same way creationism is now, they have a huge amount of work to do. And posting their beliefs at ToL isn't going to accomplish a single thing.

Of course. But it is fun to engage

 

[Jose Fly]

Of course. But it is fun to engage

Oh absolutely. IMO, that's the main reason for doing this. Every time I think the creationists can't surprise me with the crazy anymore, they take it up to another level.

 

[6days]

Science can no more prove young earth creationism than it can the Resurrection, but if you want to believe in young earth creationism because you think that scripture says that, then have at it.

We believe in virgin birth, creation, healing the resurrection etc because That is what His Word tells us.

 

[6days]

But he also mistakenly claims that evolution, and in truth all science, is based purely on opinions and as such is no more reliable than Genesis. A massive error that he has no interest in correcting

Oh my.... when evolutionists can't win a discussion they fabricate strawmen .

 

[Kdall]

Oh my.... when evolutionists can't win a discussion they fabricate strawmen .

If you honestly believe a word of that......then good for you. I'll let you ride your high. It seems you are pretty desperate for hint of victory

 

[way 2 go]

Oh my.... when evolutionists can't win a discussion they fabricate strawmen .

they fabricated rodhocetus , nebraska man they are used to "fabricating" .

Iron as a preservative ,I really like the iron as a preservative
makes me laugh just thinking about trying to sell that to women
as a way to keep their skin soft.

 

[Kdall]

they fabricated rodhocetus , nebraska man they are used to "fabricating" .

I remember several months back very clearly explaining to you that Rhodocetus only had the very tip of its snout fabricated, which is where it's nostrils obviously had to be. That's not a blowhole, because of course blowholes are on top of the skull, and if they would've wanted to trick the public into thinking Rhodocetus had a blowhole, then they would've drilled one into the skull's top. Instead, they were honest and simply placed its nostrils where they had to be, on the only part of the skull that was missing: the tip of the nose. It's nostrils in the fabrication are exactly where a modern crocodile's would be. No deception at all. Just creationists desperately wanting there to be one.

Do you really want to go down the hoax road? Creationists have far more examples of deception than proponents of evolution. Just say the word, and I'll gladly give you a nice long list that will make your head explode

 

[The Barbarian]

they fabricated rodhocetus

Nope:
Rodhocetus (from Rodho, the geological anticline at the type locality, and cetus, Latin for whale)[1] is an extinct genus of protocetid early whale known from the Lutetian (48.6 to 40.4 million years ago) of Pakistan.[2] The best-known protocetid, Rodhocetus is known from two partial skeletons that taken together give a complete image of an Eocene whale that had short limbs with long hands and feet that were probably webbed and a sacrum that was at immobile with four partially fused sacral vertebrae.[3] It is one of several extinct whale genera that possess land mammal characteristics, thus demonstrating the evolutionary transition from land to sea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodhocetus

It was a fairly advanced whale for the time, so it was hypothesized to have flippers. Surprisingly a second find showed that it had small legs:

nebraska man

"Nebraska man" was largely the invention of a London tabloid:

A reptile expert found a peculiar tooth that looked like that of a primate. When it was reviewed by a mammal expert, he identified it as a peccary tooth, oddly worn to resemble a primate tooth. That's it.

The tabloid took that and ran with it. Surprise. Creationists, as usual, pretended the tabloid was a scientific journal; they are used to "fabricating" .

Iron as a preservative ,I really like the iron as a preservative
makes me laugh just thinking about trying to sell that to women
as a way to keep their skin soft.

Well, it preserves organic molecules, but it doesn't do much for tissue or cells. So maybe it's not a good idea. Formaldehyde preserves organic material too.

But you probably don't want to rub it on your face. Just saying.

 

[The Barbarian]

If you honestly believe a word of that......then good for you. I'll let you ride your high. It seems you are pretty desperate for hint of victory

6days seems to have come down with a bad case of Stipe's Syndrome.

 

[way 2 go]

Do you really want to go down the hoax road? Creationists have far more examples of deception than proponents of evolution. Just say the word, and I'll gladly give you a nice long list that will make your head explode

I prefer the truth , have any of that?

 

[Kdall]

I prefer the truth , have any of that?

In droves. What would you like to learn about? I'll happily give you a brief crash course in anything relating to this thread you'd like to know, complete with credible sources. The ball is in your court

 

[way 2 go]

Nope:
Rodhocetus

It was a fairly advanced whale for the time, so it was hypothesized to have flippers. Surprisingly a second find showed that it had small legs:

video of the guy admitting he made up rodhocetus
https://youtu.be/R7e6C6yUqck

"Nebraska man" was largely the invention of a London tabloid:

1st published in science journal

nebraska man was not on the scale of piltdown man

Well, it preserves organic molecules, but it doesn't do much for tissue or cells. So maybe it's not a good idea. Formaldehyde preserves organic material too.
But you probably don't want to rub it on your face. Just saying.

iron does not keep soft tissue soft

 

[Kdall]

video of the guy admitting he made up rodhocetus
https://youtu.be/R7e6C6yUqck

I remember several months back very clearly explaining to you that Rhodocetus only had the very tip of its snout fabricated, which is where it's nostrils obviously had to be. That's not a blowhole, because of course blowholes are on top of the skull, and if they would've wanted to trick the public into thinking Rhodocetus had a blowhole, then they would've drilled one into the skull's top. Instead, they were honest and simply placed its nostrils where they had to be, on the only part of the skull that was missing: the tip of the nose. It's nostrils in the fabrication are exactly where a modern crocodile's would be. No deception at all. Just creationists desperately wanting there to be one.

Did you forget about this? Your overzealous attempts to find fraud where there isn't one have been noted


And yes, iron does preserve tissue and keep it soft:

"Researchers used transmission electron microscopy, electron energy loss spectroscopy, micro x-ray diffraction, and Fe micro x-ray absorption near-edge structure capabilities at the ALS to characterize the iron associated with fossil tissues, which occurred primarily as the mineral goethite. They then employed experiments to show that iron, derived from hemoglobin lysate, associated with vessels obtained from surviving ostrich bone, and that incubating bone-derived ostrich blood vessels greatly stabilized these otherwise labile materials against microbial attack and degradation. Synchrotron microprobe techniques were used to compare the iron observed in existing hemoglobin-soaked ostrich vessels with iron associated with dinosaur vessels, and showed similar, but not identical, iron moieties. The chemical speciation of iron in the ostrich tissue was a combination of oxyhaemoglobin and a disordered Fe oxyhydroxide that was referred to as a ‘biogenic-like oxide’, whereas the dinosaur tissues were found to consist of a combination of crystalline goethite and biogenic iron oxyhydroxide. The researchers hypothesize that these represent points on a continuum of biogenic iron to the geological mineral goethite. This mineral is found encapsulated in molecular ‘cages’ in living systems."

http://www-als.lbl.gov/index.php/holding/951-iron-is-the-key-to-preserving-dinosaur-soft-tissue.html