Rapid Adaptation

[Clete]

You don't get it. Why would all of science start out YEC, then only after decades of actually gathering evidence (which hadn't been done much when bible belief was the scientific norm) the community changed its collective mind to belief in billions of years?

This is not difficult to understand. One wrong turn at a critical point can lead to decades, if not centuries of error. It doesn't just happen in science but can happen in any field of study or aspect of society. In fact, such things happen in cycles. Whether you're talking about scientific knowledge or economics or famine or weather patterns or nearly anything else you can think of, it all happens in cycles.

Nobody starts with the right answer, then gets the wrong one through careful and thorough re-examination.

Of course the do! Mankind does this all the time! In fact, starting off good and progressively getting further and further away from it is the NORMAL course human beings take!

And your laughable "99%" statement above: tell me, does that come from experience with working in scientific fields or with scientists? I'm guessing not.

99% is a clear exaggeration but it comes from reading - a lot of reading.

What passes for science today, especially the so called "higher sciences" like physics has gone completely off the deep end, going so far as to accept as fact that which is flatly self-contradictory, which directly undermining sound reason which is supposed to be what science is based upon. And even the hard sciences like geology, biology, meteorology, climatology, etc have been taken over, in large measure, by the left who are more interested in pushing an agenda than they are the boundaries of knowledge. You can discover all you want so long as it doesn't contradict the idea that we all evolved from goo and that the Earth is billions of years old.

I'd wager that you haven't the foggiest idea how evolution works, do you?

Evolution does not work at all. Natural selection happens but that is not the same thing.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Jose Fly]

No one said a word about any conspiracy.

So let me see if I have this correct...

The vast, vast majority of science that is conducted today is not actually science, but a deliberate propaganda effort by those "on the left" to "push forward [a] leftist sociopolitical agenda" and turn the public away from God....

....but they're not conspiring to do so?

What is it then? Just a coincidence?

 

[Clete]

So let me see if I have this correct...

The vast, vast majority of science that is conducted today is not actually science, but a deliberate propaganda effort by those "on the left" to "push forward [a] leftist sociopolitical agenda" and turn the public away from God....

....but they're not conspiring to do so?

What is it then? Just a coincidence?

It's deliberate but that doesn't imply a conspiracy.

If I thought you were actually interested in discussing it, I'd explain further but you're obviously not. Figure it out for yourself.

 

[6days]

The vast, vast majority of science that is conducted today is not actually science, but a deliberate propaganda effort.....

Nope.....not at all.
Science that is conducted IS actually science.
But, evolutionism is a belief system..... not science.

Science helps improve our lives with improved medicine and new technology. Common ancestry beliefs have hindered science and harmed people. (increase of racism, genocides, faulty medical assumptions)

 

[Greg Jennings]

Yes Greg...you ARE talking about your belief system.

We are discussing data showing the ability of organisms to adapt or even 'speciate' rapidly.

My interpretation of the data is that if fish can adapt so rapidly, it is evidence explaining the wide diversity of life fitting with what God tells us in His Word.

Your interpretation of the data is that if a fish can adapt so rapidly, it is evidence that a fish could become a fisherman.

You dodged again, but we all knew you would so who cares.


No 6, fish developing resistance to some salinity level is not by any means good evidence for evolution on a macro level. And no one is saying that this little fact alone supports the theory of evolution.


But when you couple it with the extraordinary fossils we pull out of the dirt that show some very clear cut transitional organisms that haven't been around for some time, the established geological fact that the Earth is billions of years old, and the biological patterns of change that we observe......then you can see how fish developing a tiny little adaptation might be part of a much greater system of changes



Your "theory" says that all "types" diversified into all of the species we see today from just two organisms in every case (somehow not a single individual in any of those pairs died, I suppose by a miracle? Your hypothesis needs a LOT of those :chuckle, yet species today don't exhibit the rapid speciation that you would require in order for your hypothesis to be correct. Do you realize how many new species would have to be created per year (from the ark until now) for you to be right?

I'm guessing you've never run the numbers on that. Get back to me when you do, genius

 

[Greg Jennings]

This is not difficult to understand. One wrong turn at a critical point can lead to decades, if not centuries of error. It doesn't just happen in science but can happen in any field of study or aspect of society. In fact, such things happen in cycles. Whether you're talking about scientific knowledge or economics or famine or weather patterns or nearly anything else you can think of, it all happens in cycles.


Of course the do! Mankind does this all the time! In fact, starting off good and progressively getting further and further away from it is the NORMAL course human beings take!


99% is a clear exaggeration but it comes from reading - a lot of reading.

What passes for science today, especially the so called "higher sciences" like physics has gone completely off the deep end, going so far as to accept as fact that which is flatly self-contradictory, which directly undermining sound reason which is supposed to be what science is based upon. And even the hard sciences like geology, biology, meteorology, climatology, etc have been taken over, in large measure, by the left who are more interested in pushing an agenda than they are the boundaries of knowledge. You can discover all you want so long as it doesn't contradict the idea that we all evolved from goo and that the Earth is billions of years old.


Evolution does not work at all. Natural selection happens but that is not the same thing.

Resting in Him,
Clete

I'm so so sorry for you. If Jesus is up there, then I seriously don't think he wants you being oblivious to reality for his sake.

Go read a book or take a class. It's obvious you haven't in quite some time.....maybe ever

 

[Greg Jennings]

Nope.....not at all.
Science that is conducted IS actually science.
But, evolutionism is a belief system..... not science.

Science helps improve our lives with improved medicine and new technology. Common ancestry beliefs have hindered science and harmed people. (increase of racism, genocides, faulty medical assumptions)

6, how many experts would agree with you that "evolutionism" has hurt humankind more than organized religion? Or just Christianity alone? Or just the inquisition alone?

Just one more completely unsupported "fact" from 6days

 

[6days]

No 6, fish developing resistance to some salinity level is not by any means good evidence for evolution on a macro level.

It certainly isn't!!
It is evidence however, of an Intelligent Creator who programmed organisms to survive in changing environments.

And no one is saying that this little fact alone supports the theory of evolution.

You might want to start scolding your fellow believers who call this type of adaptation "evolution in action"...or other similar phrases that imply its evidence for Darwinian beliefs. Like the OP shows... evolutionists are often "shocked" by rapid adaptation, since it doesn't jive with their billions of years belief system.

But... the ability of organisms to rapidly adapt, using pre-existing genetic information does fit the Biblical model of an Intelligent Designer.

But when you couple it with the extraordinary fossils we pull out of the dirt that show some very clear cut transitional organisms that haven't been around for some time

Extraordinary fossils are evidence of our extraordinary Creator, and the truth of His Word.

Transitional organisms??..... Hmmmmm ��

Have you ever heard the phrase that bones can sing any song you want them too? We have seen many such stories / 'songs' created, over 'transitionals'..... But the story quietly fades away when science shines some light the story. ( Remember the 'famous' transitional called Darwinius Massilae?)

the established geological fact that the Earth is billions of years old

You seem to not understand the difference between your belief system and established facts. Here are 101 evidences of a young earth found in geology, astronomy, radiometric dating and biology. http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

and the biological patterns of change that we observe......then you can see how fish developing a tiny little adaptation might be part of a much greater system of changes

No.... You CAN"T SEE it..... You BELIEVE IT.

Your "theory" says that all "types" diversified into all of the species we see today from just two organisms in every case (somehow not a single individual in any of those pairs died, I suppose by a miracle? Your hypothesis needs a LOT of those ), yet species today don't exhibit the rapid speciation that you would require in order for your hypothesis to be correct. Do you realize how many new species would have to be created per year (from the ark until now) for you to be right?
I'm guessing you've never run the numbers on that. Get back to me when you do, genius

Appreciate you thinking I'm a genius Greg �� But, there are far brighter people than I who have "run the numbers". Like I have suggested before, it wouldn't hurt for you to do just a wee bit of research.

Its easy to find answers such as this... http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c013.html

 

[6days]

6, how many experts would agree with you that "evolutionism" has hurt humankind more than organized religion?

Strawman argument ...and an attempt at moving goalposts.

This is what I said..."Science helps improve our lives with improved medicine and new technology. Common ancestry beliefs have hindered science and harmed people. (increase of racism, genocides, faulty medical assumptions)"

 

[Greg Jennings]

It certainly isn't!!
It is evidence however, of an Intelligent Creator who programmed organisms to survive in changing environments.

You might want to start scolding your fellow believers who call this type of adaptation "evolution in action"...or other similar phrases that imply its evidence for Darwinian beliefs. Like the OP shows... evolutionists are often "shocked" by rapid adaptation, since it doesn't jive with their billions of years belief system.

That's simply not true. Every time you or Stripe use the phrase "evolutionists are shocked" it's always been a quote-mine. I don't expect this to be any different

But... the ability of organisms to rapidly adapt, using pre-existing genetic information does fit the Biblical model of an Intelligent Designer.

No it doesn't. If your model was correct, then there would be several new species appearing every single day. You are suggesting that organisms once all had the ability to rapidly speciate at rates never before seen, and then have now all for some reason lost that ability? That's crazier than your usual stuff, tbh

Extraordinary fossils are evidence of our extraordinary Creator, and the truth of His Word.

No mention of prehistoric creatures in "God's word." That is quite the contradiction. The bible mentions all sorts of creatures to enter the ark. How many different mammal species are listed? And you think that not one dinosaur made the final list? You don't think that the largest animals to ever exist might merit a mention?

Transitional organisms??..... Hmmmmm ��

Have you ever heard the phrase that bones can sing any song you want them too? We have seen many such stories / 'songs' created, over 'transitionals'..... But the story quietly fades away when science shines some light the story. ( Remember the 'famous' transitional called Darwinius Massilae?)

And what scientifically esteemed source did you hear this from?

You seem to not understand the difference between your belief system and established facts. Here are 101 evidences of a young earth found in geology, astronomy, radiometric dating and biology. http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

6, if it was just my belief, then it wouldn't be fully supported by every single scientific organization on the planet. Or will you finally find just one single scientific organization/body that either A) rejects evolution or B) accepts a young age for earth?

If it's just a belief and it's not science, then why does every single scientific organization in existence support it?

No.... You CAN"T SEE it..... You BELIEVE IT.

We see it. I'm sorry that is upsetting, but shaking your head and saying "nuh-uh" isn't changing the facts

Appreciate you thinking I'm a genius Greg �� But, there are far brighter people than I who have "run the numbers". Like I have suggested before, it wouldn't hurt for you to do just a wee bit of research.

Its easy to find answers such as this... http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c013.html

Again, if you were right then several new species would be appearing daily. Subspecies of different animals and plants would be popping up everywhere.

Now tell me, is that what we observe today?

 

[Greg Jennings]

Strawman argument ...and an attempt at moving goalposts.

This is what I said..."Science helps improve our lives with improved medicine and new technology. Common ancestry beliefs have hindered science and harmed people. (increase of racism, genocides, faulty medical assumptions)"

That's not a strawman. I'm now fairly convinced you have no idea what that word means.


You clearly declared that common ancestry beliefs have lead to great suffering, even using genocide as an example.

How is it a strawman to ask you why no experts agree with you on that? YOU brought the subject up!


If you don't want to be called on your bull, then don't put it out so much. Back up your statement or admit your error

 

[Jose Fly]

It's deliberate but that doesn't imply a conspiracy.

So the vast majority of scientists all over the world and over the last several decades, instead of doing actual science, have been deliberately implementing a propaganda effort to push a leftist sociopolitical and anti-God agenda....

...with no coordination at all? They just coincidentally stumbled on to the same goals and methods?

If I thought you were actually interested in discussing it, I'd explain further but you're obviously not. Figure it out for yourself.

Well, I've worked in biology for over 20 years now, and I can't recall ever seeing anything like what you describe. Do you have any actual....you know...evidence to support your wild accusations? :think:

 

[Jose Fly]

Nope.....not at all.

Sorry bud, but you left a whole suite of unanswered questions on the table.

Post #458

 

[6days]

That's not a strawman. I'm now fairly convinced you have no idea what that word means.
You clearly declared that common ancestry beliefs have lead to great suffering, even using genocide as an example.

Greg..... You are the only person, who I repeatedly ask you to do just a wee bit of research before posting.
So.....Lets break this down, to show your error...once again.

Wiki says "A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent"

What I had said was "..."Science helps improve our lives with improved medicine and new technology. Common ancestry beliefs have hindered science and harmed people. (increase of racism, genocides, faulty medical assumptions)"

You tried to refute my statement by refuting an argument that was not advanced. I was not making an argument that religion is better, or worse than common ancestry beliefs as you implied in your strawman...Your strawman "how many experts would agree with you that "evolutionism" has hurt humankind more than organized religion?"

It was another strawman fallacy argument Greg.

 

[Stripe]

Sorry bud, but you left a whole suite of unanswered questions on the table.

Fortunately, we are not required to bow to your demands. :up:

 

[Greg Jennings]

What I had said was "...Science helps improve our lives with improved medicine and new technology.

That is a statement that everyone in the world agrees with.

Common ancestry beliefs have hindered science and harmed people. (increase of racism, genocides, faulty medical assumptions)"

That is false, and I challenged you on it accordingly.

You tried to refute my statement by refuting an argument that was not advanced. I was not making an argument that religion is better, or worse than common ancestry beliefs as you implied in your strawman...Your strawman "how many experts would agree with you that "evolutionism" has hurt humankind more than organized religion?"

It was another strawman fallacy argument Greg.

So what were you suggesting when you said that evolutionism was the cause of some genocides? Did you not mean it that way?

Because you DID say that.

 

[6days]

Common ancestry beliefs have hindered science and harmed people. (increase of racism, genocides, faulty medical assumptions)"

That is false

Its true.

RACISM
Stephen Jay Gould admitted "Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1850, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory."

GENOCIDE
Read Darwin and his thoughts on races of people not as highly evolved as white people. Then do a little research to see how Darwinian beliefs effected Stalin and the murder of more than 60 million people. Likewise with Mao... Darwinism lead the way to Chinese Marxism and the killing of more than 70 million people. Or, watch this short Nazi video to see how survival of the fittest / evolutionary beliefs lead to the holocaust. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdH0c2FS-Wg

FAULTY MEDICAL ASSUMPTIONS
There are admissions from evolutionists that faulty assumptions were made about vestigial organs, Junk DNA and more.

Here is one article discussing "Et tu, Pseudogenes? Another Type of "Junk" DNA Betrays Darwinian Predictions" http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/04/et_tu_pseudogenes_another_type046121.html

You tried to refute my statement by refuting an argument that was not advanced. I was not making an argument that religion is better, or worse than common ancestry beliefs as you implied in your strawman...Your strawman "how many experts would agree with you that "evolutionism" has hurt humankind more than organized religion?"
It was another strawman fallacy argument Greg.

So what were you suggesting when you said that evolutionism was the cause of some genocides? Did you not mean it that way?
Because you DID say that.

Yes, I did say something similar to that. You can read my exact statement above. And, you will notice I was not comparing it to religion as you did in your strawman argument.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Its true.

RACISM
Stephen Jay Gould admitted "Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1850, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory."

GENOCIDE
Read Darwin and his thoughts on races of people not as highly evolved as white people. Then do a little research to see how Darwinian beliefs effected Stalin and the murder of more than 60 million people. Likewise with Mao... Darwinism lead the way to Chinese Marxism and the killing of more than 70 million people. Or, watch this short Nazi video to see how survival of the fittest / evolutionary beliefs lead to the holocaust. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdH0c2FS-Wg

Those are singular opinions. There is not one single organization in existence today that corroborates this, either scientific, humanitarian, foreign-aid, or any other. Not a one.

Just as usual, you (and all creationists to be fair) must misrepresent reality to even attempt to put up an argument

FAULTY MEDICAL ASSUMPTIONS
There are admissions from evolutionists that faulty assumptions were made about vestigial organs, Junk DNA and more.

Here is one article discussing "Et tu, Pseudogenes? Another Type of "Junk" DNA Betrays Darwinian Predictions" http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/04/et_tu_pseudogenes_another_type046121.html


Yes, I did say something similar to that. You can read my exact statement above. And, you will notice I was not comparing it to religion as you did in your strawman argument.

How many scientific organizations support what you're saying here? Is there even one?

I and several others have been over "junk DNA" and what that term means before. But you're a creationist, and you are dishonest by nature, and therefore just ignore the corrections that have been handed to you time and again.


Go take a class. I'm not sure what is more embarrassing: the fact that you have never studied the material you are talking about, or the fact that you think you actually have a clue about the science here. You've never studied it!

 

[6days]

Those are singular opinions. There is not one single organization in existence today that corroborates this, either scientific, humanitarian, foreign-aid, or any other. Not a one.

Greg... You really have a difficult time presenting rational and logical arguments. Rather than try refute the argument.... or refute the "experts" you asked for, you now try and run away with the goalposts saying "organizations' opinions are what matters. Besides that... even your new argument is false. Most organizations that would have an opinion on things like racism, know without doubt that "scientific racism" (google it) has harmed people.

What I said was correct....and supported by "expert" evolutionist opinions. Common ancestry beliefs have hindered science and harmed people. (increase of racism, genocides, faulty medical assumptions)".

I and several others have been over "junk DNA" and what that term means before. But you're a creationist, and you are dishonest by nature, and therefore just ignore the corrections that have been handed to you time and again.

Yes Greg... You were shown how evolutionists made faulty assumptions based on their belief system in common ancestry. You were also shown how science is now in the process of showing that which evolutionists called "Junk" "Flotsam" etc...actually is complex, sophisticated, functional. Rather than assume this DNA was there by design and serving purpose, it was ignored based on a faulty belief system.

Go take a class. I'm not sure what is more embarrassing: the fact that you have never studied the material you are talking about, or the fact that you think you actually have a clue about the science here. You've never studied it!

Greg, when you are the one who is teaching me...rather than visa versa, your suggestion may have merit. Until then... my suggestion to you stands. I'm advising you do a wee bit of research before posting things so easily proven wrong.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Greg... You really have a difficult time presenting rational and logical arguments. Rather than try refute the argument.... or refute the "experts" you asked for, you now try and run away with the goalposts saying "organizations' opinions are what matters. Besides that... even your new argument is false. Most organizations that would have an opinion on things like racism, know without doubt that "scientific racism" (google it) has harmed people.

What I said was correct....and supported by "expert" evolutionist opinions. Common ancestry beliefs have hindered science and harmed people. (increase of racism, genocides, faulty medical assumptions)".


Yes Greg... You were shown how evolutionists made faulty assumptions based on their belief system in common ancestry. You were also shown how science is now in the process of showing that which evolutionists called "Junk" "Flotsam" etc...actually is complex, sophisticated, functional. Rather than assume this DNA was there by design and serving purpose, it was ignored based on a faulty belief system.


Greg, when you are the one who is teaching me...rather than visa versa, your suggestion may have merit. Until then... my suggestion to you stands. I'm advising you do a wee bit of research before posting things so easily proven wrong.

:chuckle:

Is that really what you feel is going on?

You demonstrate my point quite well that you "have never studied the material you are talking about, [and yet] you think that you actually have a clue about the science here."

It's a common trait among creationists in regards to science, and generally of people who are improperly educated (if educated at all) about the subject(s) being discussed.

Rather than chase you down the rabbit hole of correcting you for the thousandth time, I'm going to start a thread. See you there, Rodger Dodger