I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution

[Alate_One]

You know the Dorudon is not a whale; they have totally different teeth among other completely different anatomy...

It's clearly a mammal. The front teeth are similar to toothed whales of today.

Hey, you don’t think that Plesiosaur were the precursor to the Dorudon do you?!? Oh my gosh! Call the Smithsonian Institute; we just discovered a new link in whale evolution!!! See how much bigger the Plesiosaur pelvic fin is than the Dorudon? That means it must be the precursor to the Dorudon!!! Silly Evols! Tricks are for kids.

Why would something that's a fin, return to a leglike shape? I don't think you understand evolution very well. PLesiosaurs are aquatic reptiles, not mammals. They're from a different evolutionary return to the sea.

In all “teleost” (bony) marine animals that have pelvic fins, you see these same bone structures you find on the Dorudon.

Teleosts are fish. Fish are quite distantly related to mammals. If you were to claim Dorudon is a fish you'd be quite far off.

Evolutionist claims about these pelvic fins found on Dorudon being anything but functional pelvic fins are being dishonest, or don’t have any knowledge of bony marine life.

None of the pelvic fins you showed have the have kneecaps or ankles of Dorudon.

Yes, I’m pretty sure most animals on earth that have appendages, have five digits in their appendages; can you think of one that does not?

Already said elsewhere. Birds and horses.

The fact is, evolutionists believe obvious lies; that say those bones used in reproduction for whales were once legs, though there is no proof of this; which shows evols will falsify information to try and give credence to a belief in which there is no proof for: in fact, there is proof to the contrary.

You're directly lying about this. Clearly these are not in any way "pelvic fins"

Ichthyosaurs have pelvic fins.

 

[Yorzhik]

There are a lot of distinguished historians that reject the holocaust. Do you really want this as your argument?

A lot of *distinguished historians*? Besides Harry Elmer Barnes? Name them.

And the claims are?

The claim is:

There’s no reason to doubt that Darwin successfully explained the small adjustments by which an organism adapts to local circumstances: changes to fur density or wing style or beak shape. Yet there are many reasons to doubt whether he can answer the hard questions and explain the big picture—not the fine-tuning of existing species but the emergence of new ones. The origin of species is exactly what Darwin cannot explain.

The claim and support are here.

:rotfl: Oh, you're serious. Wow, that's some class A level delusion and projection. Have you been taking lessons from Trump? Common Descent is not remotely fragile. It gets stronger all the time. It's very difficult not to run into in biology.

Go ahead; laugh and call me names. It's the strongest argument you've got for common descent.

I'll say it again. If you deny evolution you're not consistent with good science. People have all kinds of reasons for rejecting evolution. None of them are based on objective evaluation of the evidence.

But common descent is almost devoid of evidence. You've got a couple things going for you. One is homology. Another is radiometric dating. Any other theory with such weak evidence would not be as popular as common descent is. When scientists, like Dr. Gelernter, reject common descent it is almost always because they couldn't deny the evidence because they know the popularity of the idea does not rely on evidence but its gatekeepers which they are defying. What did you find from Dr. Gelernter's article that was unscientific?

Never said it was magic.

Yes you did. When you said "I realize some people think DNA is just like "code" but it really isn't... biology is analog" You are claiming that 4 symbols that can be combined to command physical things is somehow "analog".

The reason that can be properly called magic is because science cannot study real magic. And when you stop calling a code system what it is, you are calling for science to stop studying it.

It would be the same if Gandolf from the movies was real. He'd laugh at scientists trying to explain his magic. It's similar to the way you laugh at scientists so the parallel is apt.

It's far more complex than computer code and relies on a lot of chemical interactions. The analogy really isn't a very great one for the purposes of evaluating evolution. Partly because I don't believe you understand biology or computer code so . . .

We've made great strides with DNA because science treats DNA like code. Can you name a breakthrough that was made because they didn't view DNA as code?

 

[Stripe]

Uhh I did that in the OP.

Challenges to what you believe come after you've outlined your case.

You implied that we were only talking about the code of DNA but not all DNA. What parts are excluded then?

I was explicit: There is no fundamental difference between DNA and a computer program in that a genome is vastly more complex. As you admit, both — even if only in theory for one — could be reduced to 1's and 0's. You keep talking about the hardware like I have not explicitly stated numerous times that the challenge you face is restricted to aspects of software.

Eg, "You could, only in the sense of modeling the underlying chemical basis."

Entirely irrelevant. Only necessary for those who want to dodge a pretty simple challenge that you have turned into an unweildly mess.

 

[Alate_One]

Yes you did. When you said "I realize some people think DNA is just like "code" but it really isn't... biology is analog" You are claiming that 4 symbols that can be combined to command physical things is somehow "analog".

I'm going to answer this alone since both you and Stripe seem to be confused on this point. Here is the problem. This is wrong. Adenine Thymine Guanine and Cytosine are NOT just symbols. They are chemicals and their chemical nature determines much of the genome's function.

What determines an organism's shape isn't just the code of the proteins (or the functional RNAs that are also encoded by DNA), it's where when and how often those proteins physically bind to the DNA bases and then bind other proteins. And that's determined by the chemical nature of those bases and proteins. So some bases do have a codelike function - they stand for amino acids. Other bases perform a chemical function, the binding sites for proteins.

You cannot emulate the function of DNA by emulating only one of the functions of bases.

Example - Darwin's finches. They differ in the shape of their beaks. How is the beak shape made different? By how much a particular master control protein binds to a spot on DNA and how much protein is made by a specific gene. A tiny difference in that binding can change the amount of protein, a few hours more expression, creates most of the difference between the long beak of a cactus finch and the thick heavy beak of a ground finch.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26606649

The same kind of change created the human ability to digest milk as adults and produce amylase in our saliva. Regulatory changes are hard for scientists to detect because they don't operate as a simple code like codons and amino acids produced by them. The physical placement of regions of DNA inside of the cell is also important, some genes are close to one another, and others are not with proteins binding to them. The availability of specific regions of DNA to proteins is determined by the proteins binding to them and to the chemical modifications to the bases - epigenetics. You could model all of this in a computer theoretically but you would have to model all of DNA function as well as proteins and spatial organization, not just the order of ATGC.

This image from a paper on HOX gene regulation.
https://dev.biologists.org/content/140/19/3951

Mind you this entire argument is basically for you to try to say, "see a computer scientist can understand DNA, therefore his opinion matters and evolution must be wrong." None of which follows from your argument, even if it were accurate. :dizzy:

 

[Stripe]

I'm going to answer this alone since both you and Stripe seem to be confused on this point. Here is the problem. This is wrong. Adenine Thymine Guanine and Cytosine are NOT just symbols. They are chemicals and their chemical nature determines much of the genome's function.

We're not confused at all and of course you'd switch to teacher mode, because you're refusing to engage over the challenge you face.

DNA is wildly complex, far beyond what you describe here. We know. The complexity of the code is irrelevant to the challenge you face, which is why you're so doggedly concerned with it.

This entire argument is basically for you to try to say, "see a computer scientist can understand DNA, therefore his opinion matters and evolution must be wrong."

Attributing motive to avoid a challenge is not going to get you off the hook.

A computer scientist could never understand everything about DNA. Nobody can. Our ability to understand what each instructive chemical does is irrelevant to this conversation, which is why you have spent all your time on it.

None of which follows from your argument.

It looks very much like you have no idea what the challenge is that you face. :idunno:

 

[Alate_One]

We're not confused at all and of course you'd switch to teacher mode, because you're refusing to engage over the challenge you face.

Mkay let's try our analogy again,

DNA is wildly complex, far beyond what you describe here. We know. The complexity of the code is irrelevant to the challenge you face, which is why you're so doggedly concerned with it.

You read what I said as "the code is complex" and it's not that at all.

It looks very much like you have no idea what the challenge is that you face.

You have no clue what you're talking about, so . . . I think you're the one being challenged here. :chuckle:

Let's talk literal computing then. Computer code is really just a set of voltages humans have designed to equal ones and zeros. All well and good. There's a physical device for doing that made (today) of semiconducting silicon overlain with a conductive material, along with resistors, magnetic or solid state drives, switches etc. To have a computer work, you don't JUST have code, you must have a physical device. Otherwise the best you can have is a printed paper of statements or a long paper of machine language ones and zeroes which do nothing.

DNA is not just the ones and zeroes of code it is ALSO analogous to the physical structure of a computer. And it's the physical-chemical interactions of DNA, proteins and RNA that DO the actual functions of life. They are the computer itself. So you can't separate the physical-chemical nature of DNA into just code, because you then miss the majority of its function. The video below makes that specific analogy.

See Fold-It, a computer program that models protein folding and interactions:
https://fold.it/portal/

To have DNA work in a human designed code driven computer system you'd want something like fold it that also models DNA, RNA etc. Yes it would be tremendously complex, but you'd probably be able to discover more about DNA and cellular function as whole.

What wouldn't be especially helpful would be turning each base into a computer symbol and trying to figure out the "rules" for how to make that work. Short answer: it won't do much.

You could spit out all of the proteins encoded by a genome sure, but we did that back in the year 2000, and protein coding sequences make up about 1.5% of the human genome. The rest of the genome does all of those physical and chemical interactions I mentioned.

 

[Right Divider]

When you also find fossils in the ground that show intermediate steps between forms, when the same genes are found in fish, when every organism has the same pattern of bones just modified, why assume a common designer in the human-like sense?

I don't "assume a common designer in the human-like sense". God is far more intelligent than His creation.

A single human designer when making machines for different purposes would not use identical engines to run everything from a submarine to a semi truck to an airplane. But we do see that in evolution.

No, we don't.

If it's all about common design, why don't bats have feathers? Why don't whales have scales and breathe water?

Why do you believe that bats need feathers?

Basing your interpretation of the evidence on your incorrect theory leads you to the wrong conclusion.

The Bible says that God created more then one kind of animal. I'll stick with God and understand the evidence that way.

 

[Alate_One]

I don't "assume a common designer in the human-like sense". God is far more intelligent than His creation.

I agree. That's why you shouldn't use personal incredulity to discount evolution. Perhaps evolution is the smarter way to design in the long run.

No, we don't.

Sure we do. Whales breathe air despite living in an ocean of water. Why don't they breath the water like fish do? We see the patterns of inheritance in animals and plants, not common design. If you want to see common design, look at how car manufacturers have many different options and redesign vehicles to be very different from previous models.

Why do believe that bats need feathers?

Why do birds need them then? Why not have wings and fur like bats?

Basing your interpretation of the evidence on your theory is backwards.

No, you use the theory to make predictions and then test the predictions of the theory using evidence. That's how science works.

I say the patterns of features on living organisms reflect ancestry, not common design. This means features like feathers will not be found on things not descended from dinosaurs. So no feathered whales or bats.

But penguins do have feathers since they are birds.

The Bible says that God created more then one kind of animal. I'll stick with God and understand the evidence that way.

So if whales had scales they would automatically be fish? Why did God follow the patterns of inheritance to distribute features? Why not deviate a few times, just to be different?

If a Volvo was automatic that would make it a Ford?

Are all birds one "kind" of animal since they all have feathers? Does that mean dinosaurs are birds?

 

[Stripe]

Let's talk literal computing then.

Because you want to ignore the discussion.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I agree. That's why you shouldn't use personal incredulity to discount evolution. Perhaps evolution is the smarter way to design in the long run.

It's not, and it doesn't match what the Bible says.

Building creatures from the DNA up, and then re-using the DNA code in different animals to give them similar features (what evolutionists like to call "convergent evolution," even though it's anything but) is, as anyone anywhere who works with programming languages will tell you, the best way to design a system.

Reusing old code in new ways is efficient, instead of having to build a code segment from scratch, just duplicate code that already performs the function you want.

God says "six days" and "at the beginning of creation He made [Man] male and female."

He didn't say millions or billions of years and relatively recently.

By the way, you haven't even come close to addressing the elephant in the room, which is the problem that the laws of physics do not include symbolic logic functions, and because information (which is what DNA truly is) is not itself physical (even though it can be carried and transmitted through physical means), strictly material systems cannot give rise to informatio systems (such as DNA).

You could argue at that point that perhaps God did that part, but then you're faced with the issue of what the Bible says about how God created, which doesn't fit with any materialistic means of origins, now matter how hard you try to shoehorn it in.

Sure we do. Whales breathe air despite living in an ocean of water. Why don't they breath the water like fish do?

Why should they?

We see the patterns of inheritance in animals and plants, not common design.

Inheritance from what?

The fact that similar strands of DNA are found in multiple unrelated creatures (take echolocation in bats and dolphins, for example) is evidence of a common designer, not common ancestors.

If you want to see common design, look at how car manufacturers have many different options and redesign vehicles to be very different from previous models.

Which shows creativity and innovation by intelligent beings, not random changes.

Why do birds need them then? Why not have wings and fur like bats?

Because God designed birds differently than bats.

No, you use the theory to make predictions and then test the predictions of the theory using evidence. That's how science works.

I say the patterns of features on living organisms reflect ancestry, not common design. This means features like feathers will not be found on things not descended from dinosaurs. So no feathered whales or bats.

But penguins do have feathers since they are birds.

So if whales had scales they would automatically be fish?

The fact is, whales DON'T have scales.

Why did God follow the patterns of inheritance to distribute features?

This is question begging.

Asserting your position as true doesn't allow for proper discussion of evidence to take place. It's not science.

Why not deviate a few times, just to be different?

Deviate from what? The created kinds?

If a Volvo was automatic that would make it a Ford?

No. Because Fords aren't the only automatic vehicles.

Are all birds one "kind" of animal since they all have feathers?

No.

Had you paid attention in Bible school, you wouldn't have needed to ask this silly question.

Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens.”So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” - Genesis 1:20-22 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis1:20-22&version=NKJV

There are multiple kinds of birds. Just like rhere are multiple kinds of dinosaurs.

Does that mean dinosaurs are birds?

No.

If anything, the above passage shows that dinosaurs are NOT birds, nor are birds dinosaurs, especially since birds were created on the day BEFORE land animals were created.

Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens.”So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.”So the evening and the morning were the fifth day.Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; and it was so.And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food”; and it was so.Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day. - Genesis 1:20-31 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis1:20-31&version=NKJV

 

[Right Divider]

I agree. That's why you shouldn't use personal incredulity to discount evolution. Perhaps evolution is the smarter way to design in the long run.

:rotfl:

Random chance is "the smarter way to DESIGN"? No, random is NOT design in any sense of the word.

 

[Alate_One]

Because you want to ignore the discussion.

I gave you plenty of fodder for the discussion. But you don't understand it and want to continue building your straw man. :idunno:

 

[Alate_One]

:rotfl:

Random chance is "the smarter way to DESIGN"? No, random is NOT design in any sense of the word.

Evolution isn't random chance. Mutations are, but the selection that actually changes organisms is predictable.

 

[chair]

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. A thousand times wrong. Without genetic diversity, an organism is clonal. The first environmental change that appeared would wipe out the species. WE have such things without diversity. They're called inbred lines.

Commercial bananas are a good example. They are all genetically identical- and a disease is wiping them out.

https://www.newsweek.com/worlds-ban...re-imminent-danger-publish-monday-5am-1321787

 

[Stripe]

Commercial bananas are a good example. They are all genetically identical- and a disease is wiping them out.

Exactly. These things have — get this — diversified from what was once a genome of greater integrity.

Thanks for reinforcing my point. :up:

 

[chair]

Exactly. These things have — get this — diversified from what was once a genome of greater integrity.

Thanks for reinforcing my point. :up:

No. Read the links. They all have the exact same genome. They are all susceptible to the same disease. None are resistant.

 

[Stripe]

No. Read the links. They all have the exact same genome. They are all susceptible to the same disease. None are resistant.

Read my post. They came from a wider banana "family." You cannot take the genome of a particular strain and assert that it is all that exists.

 

[Right Divider]

Evolution isn't random chance. Mutations are, but the selection that actually changes organisms is predictable.

You guys tell the funniest stories.

Selection of randomness is design?

As you should well know by now, mutations are vastly destructive and cannot "create" complex life forms with complex systems.

 

[Alate_One]

Read my post. They came from a wider banana "family." You cannot take the genome of a particular strain and assert that it is all that exists.

There is no such thing as a genome of a "wider banana family". If you have a non-diverse genome it's the genome of an individual, period. Any individual organism can only contain a certain set of genes. There is a reason why there is a science called population genetics. A population can contain far more versions of a gene than an individual can. This is why genetic diversity in a population is important. Without diversity in a population, you are literally missing genetic information.

So your assertions have no basis in reality.

The problem for Bananas is any one banana variety is every individual plant is virtually identical to any other. The variety name of almost all global bananas is Cavendish. However Cavendish was a replacement for an older banana variety, Gros Michel which wasn't immune to a now global strain of Panama disease. So Cavendish replaced it because it was immune to the disease, a better variety. Well the disease has now changed and Cavendish isn't immune to this new version. And since Cavenish Bananas are all the same, they're all going to die from the disease without lots of chemical sprays (expensive).

Replacing Cavendish is difficult because Bananas generally don't produce seeds at all so generating new varieties (variation) is difficult. The only way to solve this problem is VARIATION. Any time a disease appears, if there is variation, some individuals will survive. Without variation the population goes extinct or can only survive where the disease is not present.

 

[Alate_One]

You guys tell the funniest stories.

Selection of randomness is design?

Yes it is. Humans do this all the time. It's called mutation breeding.

As you should well know by now, mutations are vastly destructive and cannot "create" complex life forms with complex systems.

How do you define "complex" life forms?