Other than that...
It's laid out clearly. If you are scared of a challenge, just say so. :chuckle:
Other than that...
Oh definitely. When asked 1) how you would tell which populations share a common ancestry and which didn't, and 2) by what mechanism do populations descend from common ancestors, URL="http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4348789&postcount=75"]you said[/URL] you had no idea.That's creationism for you.
Right here in this thread, in fact.
Barbarian on Stipe's "invisible challenge" game:Oh, yeah. He does that. He'll pretend that he made a "challenge" you never answered, and then when you ask him what it was, he'll never tell you, but continue to insist he made it and you never answered it. It's an important part of the playbook some creationists use. They agree with Luther than it's O.K. to lie for a good cause. It's like watching a little kid trying to fool you. He doesn't realize that he's being so obvious.(Stipe confirms Barbarian's statement)And he actually believes people are fooled. That's the funny part. Stipe's been burned by science too often to come out and give a "challenge." He just pretends he did. It's why he gets so upset with me reminding him that he never showed us his "math that refutes evolution." He got upset and blurted out a testable claim without thinking.
JoseFly said:6days said:They aren't equally valid.
And how do we tell the difference between a valid and an invalid interpretation of the same data?
JoseFly said:6days said:That's why some evolutionists are looking for new explanations... a new theory of evolutionism. Their old tired Darwinism does not have the explanatory power of Biblical Creation
Yet you can't name a single thing creationism has contributed to science in the last half century. Funny how reality doesn't match your rhetoric.
Great.... we are almost like twins, aren't we?JoseFly said:I'm reading it right now,6days said:Philip Ball wrote an article in Nature titled 'Celebrate the Unknowns' . He discusses how some of the old evolutionary ideas about DNA are simplistic to the point of being misleading. He also discusses how most evolutionists are unwilling to face up to the reality of what science is discovering.*
I think he essentially admits that evolutionists are afraid to back down from their belief system, even though science proves them wrong, because creationists will pounce on this as a victory.*
("There may also be anxiety that admitting any uncertainty about the mechanisms of evolution will be exploited by those who seek to undermine it")
He is correct, although there is no illusion that evolutionists will follow the evidence where it truly leads.
JoseFly said:and I see things like...
Although it remains beyond serious doubt that Darwinian natural selection drives much, perhaps most, evolutionary change, it is often unclear at which phenotypic level selection operates, and particularly how it plays out at the molecular level.
But then, your history of misrepresenting the work of scientists is well known here
Observational science would be a good start wouldn't it?JoseFly said:And you have no idea how to tell what organisms share a common ancestry, or by what mechanism it happened.
So you think that the lizards landed on the island, had a whole lot of babies among which a long sequence of random mutations lined up allowing for a beneficial trait that propagated throughout the population so that the novel feature became the norm -- all in about 30 years (at most).
:chuckle:
This is why evolutionists are laughed at.
You are dishonest.Barbarian said:If creationism were true, it would be easy, since each species was supposed to be created separately.
Invalid contradicts the eye witness account ...God's Word.
How do you manage to type when you have a blindfold on and hands over ears. You have been answered.
And I see things like....
* I can tell that the usual tidy tale of how 'DNA makes RNA makes protein' is sanitized to the point of distortion. .
Some geneticists and evolutionary biologists say that all this extra transcription may simply be noise, irrelevant to function and evolution. But, drawing on the fact that regulatory roles have been pinned to some of the non-coding RNA transcripts discovered in pilot projects, the ENCODE team argues that at least some of this transcription could provide a reservoir of molecules with regulatory functions — in other words, a pool of potentially 'useful' variation. ENCODE researchers even propose, to the consternation of some, that the transcript should be considered the basic unit of inheritance, with 'gene' denoting not a piece of DNA but a higher-order concept pertaining to all the transcripts that contribute to a given phenotypic trait
Researchers are also still not agreed on whether natural selection is the dominant driver of genetic change at the molecular level. Evolutionary geneticist Michael Lynch of Indiana University Bloomington has shown through modelling that random genetic drift can play a major part in the evolution of genomic features, for example the scattering of non-coding sections, called introns, through protein-coding sequences. He has also shown that rather than enhancing fitness, natural selection can generate a redundant accumulation of molecular 'defences', such as systems that detect folding problems in proteins. At best, this is burdensome. At worst, it can be catastrophic.
In short, the current picture of how and where evolution operates, and how this shapes genomes, is something of a mess. That should not be a criticism, but rather a vote of confidence in the healthy, dynamic state of molecular and evolutionary biology.
There may also be anxiety that admitting any uncertainty about the mechanisms of evolution will be exploited by those who seek to undermine it. Certainly, popular accounts of epigenetics and the ENCODE results have been much more coy about the evolutionary implications than the developmental ones. But we are grown-up enough to be told about the doubts, debates and discussions that are leaving the putative 'age of the genome' with more questions than answers. Tidying up the story bowdlerizes the science and creates straw men for its detractors. Simplistic portrayals of evolution encourage equally simplistic demolitions.
Observational science would be a good start wouldn't it?
Beyond that, we are inferring conclusions based on evidence.
Maybe you and Stripe can get together and figure this out.
You are dishonest.
Between us we've issued two challenges, neither of which you have even admitted exist.
Bird species changes fast but without genetic differences (species-specific DNA markers)...
"Rapid phenotypic evolution during incipient speciation in a continental avian radiation" Proceedings of the Royal Society B.
The researchers suggest that the lack of genetic markers may mean the changes in these birds happened so fast that the genes haven't had a chance to catch up yet!!!!
So wait....the challenge Stripe's been harping on is about this?
JoseFly said:Yep. Biologists are still figuring out how evolution works. What's not in question, as stated in the article, is that evolution happens.
See the OP... The changes we witness fit the Biblical creation model.JoseFly said:Surely you're not trying to argue that since we don't know everything about how evolution happens, that means it doesn't happen, are you?
Yes... we ALL agree that organisms change and adapt. See the OP
See the OP... The changes we witness fit the Biblical creation model.
Barbarian observes:
If creationism were true, it would be easy, since each species was supposed to be created separately.
As the history of evolutionary thought developed from the 18th century on, various views aimed at reconciling the Abrahamic religions and Genesis with biology and other sciences developed in Western culture.[5] Those holding that species had been created separately (such as Philip Gosse in 1857) were generally called "advocates of creation" but were also called "creationists," as in private correspondence between Charles Darwin and his friends.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism
There's no point in you denying it. That's just how it is. The point is that the difficulty in defining "species" is a major problem for creationism. And that's been known from the start. Darwin noted the difficulty in defining any such term, and noted that it was a consequence of species evolving.