Coral Ridge Ministries and CSI
- Thread starter Nineveh
- Start date
Nineveh
Merely Christian
How many generations of fruit flies have come and gone since Mendel? How many have turned into something other than a fruitfly?
To assume Taxonomy proves anything other than we can sort things into groups is taking it a bit too far.
I think Haeckel's ideas were tossed out for that very reason, it couldn't happen, it couldn't be proven or repeated in a lab. The closer we look at a cell the more a "natural" explanation slips away.
Cool
I'll look into that, seems Nature documented some cool new evidences to add. I dunno about that. The majority of the world for the majority of history has been pagan.
Stratnerd
New member
Serve,
[qutoe] if we go back to Science it is up to metaphysics to devise what constitutes a supersensible explanation - The whole of science has been shanghaied by the evolutionists. [/quote] I'd say that science was taken over by empiricists with evolution being one of the consequences. Revelation, to most rational people, is not a reliable epistemology.
uh... that's how it's defined.
[qutoe] if we go back to Science it is up to metaphysics to devise what constitutes a supersensible explanation - The whole of science has been shanghaied by the evolutionists. [/quote] I'd say that science was taken over by empiricists with evolution being one of the consequences. Revelation, to most rational people, is not a reliable epistemology.
Nineveh
Merely Christian
It's not too hard for me to fathom there are creatures that have gone extinct (which is a more accurate description of the fossil record). Penguins don't fly, neither do ostriches, but they have feathers. Bats fly but don't have feathers. I'm not going to propose any of these are missing links to some other sort of animal, though.
If any one of these specimens were the missing link to dino-to-birds, they would have never needed an archaeoraptor to fill the gap.
Stratnerd
New member
obviously, you didn't read my post about time...
OK, I'll say it for the umpteeth time... nothing proves anything in science. We make inferences, formulate hypotheses, etc. But evolution explains taxonomy not the other way around.
You're conflating people here... Haeckle was "ontogeny recapitulates ontegeny" not the origin of life. The origin of life is a historical problem which is certainly problematic due to the contingent nature of history. But if we look around us then the origin of life is highly unlikely and the conditions for it may not ever be reproduced in a lab. The altnernative you are offering - that life poofed here 6000 years ago has evidence against it.
err.. they've been doing molecular systematics for decades.
> I dunno about that. The majority of the world for the majority of history has been pagan.
That's kinda my point then because Christianity replaced paganism and now science has replaced Christianity - at least for thinking people that was a reliable vehicle of knowledge.
> Then were did all that info come from?
it is it's very nature.. it wasn't added to it. DNA -> life is a series of chemical reactions and there is no magic required.
> I am sure to be corrected if I am wrong
I'll do it for another $50!
aharvey
New member
My bad. I thought you meant my prediction that the per capita rate of careless word use, foolishness, and lies would be higher among creationists than among evolutionary biologists.
Obviously I didn't misunderstand you at all. You want description, not explanation. If you read scientific literature, you would see that the descriptive information you crave is there. When I collect and describe a new species of crab, I do have to describe where it was found, what it was found with, etc. Standard practise. I'm surprised you weren't aware of that. You want description, not explanation, but why, I wonder? Descriptions can be pretty boring, by themselves. Perhaps that's why your'e not a biologist!
... more than what?
That's true of most problems, but you haven't really explained why this is a problem. Life originated so long ago that evolutionary biologists don't have a clear understanding of how it happened. How does that limitation prevent us from understanding anything that happened since?
Originally posted by Nineveh
That's ok, too, I won't wait for you to correct your bretheren when they try passing off their own ideas as evo science either
But I have done so, as I've mentioned before. Lots of scientists do so. Haven't you ever heard of the "self-correcting" nature of science? A study gets published with mistakes, another scientist will come along and publish a correction.
The foundation of evolution: "descent with modification"? If so, then you're not making any sense. Who assumes descent with modification to prove descent with modification?
You have a great sense of humor, Nineveh. You're constantly sending us links of new scientific discoveries that are bringing the theory of evolution to its knees, and at the same time telling us that scientists are avoiding studying things that might challenge evolutionary orthodoxy. Who's making the 'devastating' discoveries, creationists?
Originally posted by Nineveh
There is no missing link between ape and man, so what's the new theory? Dinos to birds. Any links? Nope. So in a few years when that one gets worn out (prolly at the end of the exibit tour) what will be next? Let's wait and see
Really now. What made you grasp onto evo? The missing links that proved one thing turns into another?
Missing links, you guys never get tired of them. As I've said before, they're the perfect creationist straw man (or is it red herring?). Every new transitional fossil may fill one gap, but it creates two more! So the more fossils we find, the more missing links to complain about! And you really have no idea what you want in a missing link, do you? Brother Willi claims there's no known link between whales and terrestrial mammals, specifically referring to the blowhole, so I post a series of transitional fossil skulls that grade nicely between fully distal (e.g., like a dog) and fully dorsal (e.g., a blowhole) nostrils, with appropriate transitional ages no less. BW's response? 1) "You faked these!" 2) "That doesn't prove that these animals are related!"
Nineveh
Merely Christian
I won't argue with gravity on the edge of a cliff, will you? No, I doubt it. Will I argue taxonomy is a useful tool when used within it's capacity? No. And obviously neither did the Christian who came up with it.
My point was: spontaneous generation is what evo renamed Abiogenesis.
On one thing we can agree, lab work isn't going to show us what happened to start life. But, it's up to the people who need nature to make itself into everything that needs to answer the question or the story is all middle. Besides, who is putting a cap on funding to create the proper environment? They are wasting money on that endeavor as we speak. I figure it's just another story that needs no proof to survive, sorta like apes to man and dinos to birds.
And how did what I say get this response? Nature just did the article on the new comparisons of chimp (21) and human (22)chromosomes.
I still don't agree
Most of the world is still pagan. It's nice to see that one of ya'll has finally admitted science is your god though It's interesting that Science took leaps and bounds under Christianity Prove it
Kenyon couldn't, maybe you can point out where he got it all wrong? You would like to assume that chemicals combine on their own to create DNA, unfortunatly that is the heart of the problem for abiogenesis.I don't have any more or less criteria than the "experts" do. I'm not the one looking for a missing link, evos are.
Hey, get mad at me all you want, but I'm not the editor of NG, I'm not the one saying it was. Same goes for all those ape to man missing links.
Nineveh
Merely Christian
I am more information oriented about science. I don't have the funds for those big labs, so just getting the reader's digest version of the outcome of experiments is nice without all the added "well we think, could be, might have" tacked on. The reason I'm not a biologist with a degree is because I chose another career field, not because I lack the ability to understand. Science didn't start with "degrees"
... more than I can muster or buy on ebay.
Well, it's normal to rationalize if you have a faulty foundation the house collapses : shrugs:
I guess you just let Dimo slide then?
Back to the birds to dinos idea. Evo is assuming birds evolved from dinos. What proof? The theory that birds evolved from dinos. So far, that's about it.
No, what I am pointing out is that every "discovery" made is going to be forced into an evo model regardless of the leaps of faith it takes to make it fit. Just like that last Nature article the fact is that one chromosome comparison took us further away from "slight variation" + "massive amounts of time".
Look, it's the evos who claim a common descent, so it's nice that you try to lay the missing links chuck hypothesized at the opposition's feet. How fascinating! You have proven a missing link?! That has to be the first one I have never heard anything about, not in the news or presented here in this forum! You must be a leader in your field. Where are your findings published?
aharvey
New member
Well, then you should stick to creationist science; they don't do any of that nasty thinking stuff, do they? Unfortunately for you, thinking is an essential part of the scientific process; what do these results mean, how do they enlighten us, how do they speak to the existing body of theory, how do they compare with, complement, or expand upon previous work, what are their limitations, what do they suggest we should be looking at next, etc.
"It takes more faith than I can muster or buy on ebay to believe non living matter makes itself into living matter." ???
What makes you think that abiogenesis is the foundation of evolutionary theory? Oh, wait, now I get it. Because the evidence regarding singular events billions of years ago will always be weaker than evidence for more recent events, ancient events will always be less certain than more recent ones. Therefore you gain a tactical advantage in the controversy by insisting that the foundation of evolutionary theory is set billions of years ago. The fact that there's no logical basis for this is irrelevant, right?
Frankly, I couldn't make heads or tails out of what that whole argument was all about. You guys sounded like you were talking past each other the whole time.
Who is this "Evo" person you keep referring to? Fossil evidence, interpreted in an evolutionary framework, suggests that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Before we had the evidence, evolutionary theory didn't really make this prediction, now did it? And I'll bet you use the word "proof" just because you know it annoys scientists. But no matter. It was a different thread that clearly established that creationists automatically disqualify any piece of information from being called "evidence" if it contradicts their interpretation of the Bible, so by definition there can be no evidence for evolution, much less proof.
You should read the Nature article sometime (not the press report, and not the gleeful creationist site distortions).
You didn't read a word I wrote, did you? Here, let me try again:
Missing links, you guys never get tired of them. As I've said before, they're the perfect creationist straw man (or is it red herring?). Every new transitional fossil may fill one gap, but it creates two more! So the more fossils we find, the more missing links to complain about! (Okay, Nineveh, that's one specific idea to respond to).
And you really have no idea what you want in a missing link, do you? Brother Willi claims there's no known link between whales and terrestrial mammals, specifically referring to the blowhole, so I post a series of transitional fossil skulls that grade nicely between fully distal (e.g., like a dog) and fully dorsal (e.g., a blowhole) nostrils, with appropriate transitional ages no less. BW's response? 1) "You faked these!" 2) "That doesn't prove that these animals are related!" (Okay, Nineveh, that's the second specific idea; namely, that regardless of what is shown to you in reply to "where's the missing link between X and Y?", you will always find a reason to reject their identity as "missing links." And even if they look exactly like you would expect, you will always be able to fall back on "you haven't proved anything!", which as you well know, we never claim to do).
Lastly, I do love how you claim we are slaves to Darwin's original ideas but don't hesitate to say, "Hey, don't look at me, that was Darwin's idea!" when convenient.
That's all very nice and pious, but there is no scientiific theory that tells us what the "creator" is. Indeed, the concept is meaningless, scientifically speaking, because there are no rules to allow us to say what was the "Creator" and what was just some plain old process of chemistry.
Again you are using "kind" (another meaningless term) which you can make whatever you want it to be. There are at least 10 speciation events recorded biology. As to the rest, from comparative genetics, it is obvious that there is a pattern of relatedness of species. While there may not be enough evidence for you (indeed could there ever be?) there is enough for real scientists.
Yep. Taxonomy is a law, as any other highly successful data reduction and organization scheme. As to Linneas being a Christian, it simply shows that if your religious beliefs do not cause you abandon the scientific method, there is no problem with being a Christian and being a scientist. Indeed, to lump the great scientists of the past who were Christians in with the modern creationists is disingenous. Modern creationists tend not to be terribly competent scientists.
We don't have to account for the beginning,
only some intermediate step along the way. We are doing science, not worldview philosophy. Science is an investigative discipline by which we go from what we observe and currently believe we know, to new knowledge.
I beg to differ. We don't "group" gravity. Anyway, it will be neat to see Taxonomy applied to DNA
Of course we group gravity! That property we call gravity is a label that is used to group all of the trajectories of falling bodies. Before Newton there were only trajectories and orbits, after Newton, there were only paths of particles subject to a gravitational field. However, Newton did not understand gravity, and in fact, Newton's law of gravitation fails under certain circumstances.
Taxonomy is currently being revolutionized by DNA. (Taxonomy is *not* being abandoned because taxonomic classification is largely true.)
Well, I'm talking to you
The standard models and majority opinions of any mainstream scientific field are the best thing for laymen to adopt when approaching scientific matters, because laymen do not have sufficient knowledge of the subject to play at the level of the research scientist.
Kenyon and Behe may have "interesting" ideas, but they have not pursued them in the arena of science.
Maybe he should have hung out for a year, Medel ( a Christian )was coming
You realize that Mendel's laws fail if applied to large populations over a long period of time, because allele frequencies change with time.
So far, none of the differences has been big enough to indicate that there is any problem with common descent. It's all just wishful thinking on your part.
Basically the role of "junk" DNA is being clarified by research. There is no hard requirement that "junk DNA" be completely nonfunctional within the theory of evolution.
Science is ever changing. It is not the dry, static, dead world of religious dogma.
Just as the "Darwinian" evolution of today is something quite different from Darwin's original theory, I certainly expect the "Darwinian" evolution of the future to be something more refined, and richer than what we see today.
However, Darwin's basic mechanism: reproduction with variation will be the basic mechanism, and the notion of common descent will still rule the day.
Last edited:
There are plenty of scientists who were not Christians or even religious (Einstein and Feynman to name a couple). Indeed, Darwin is best described as a Christian, who came to find Biblical literalism wanting as a way of understanding the processes of the world.
DNA acts as a binary storage mechanism-consider it a storage mechanism for a string of characters. A random string of characters contains (as measured by negentropy) the highest possible information content. Double the length of a random string, and you increase its information. Take a string of characters and make it more random, and you increase its information.
So, fundamentally, processes such as those which make gene duplication, transpositions, combined with mutation and natural selection are the source of genetic information.
The real question is, is there any significant difference in the amount of information in the DNA of a microbe, or that of a man. The answer is " not much" beyond that which describes the difference in the lengths of the DNA strings.
So: molecule --> microbe is a far larger leap in information than microbe -> man.
Stratnerd
New member
but neither you nor Linneaus can defend what that capacity is what what any classification means. "look, patterns..." and that's about it.
no, not really... abiogenesis is the very beginning of life itself in a historical sense. Spontaneous generation was a different outlook - flies from dead meat sort of thing and once thought to be a thing that might be repeatable not the purely historical abiogenesis.
sort of, it can rule out certain aspects and give insights to possible avenues.
NSF
that is your opinion - I think it is important to understand our beginnings rather to rely on already-failed explanations - which only religious fundies adhere to.
and what % difference are we?
for pete's sake N - STOP PUTTING WORKDS IN MY MOUTH - what is your problem???? I never said science is anything like God but I said it was a source of knowledge? Can you understand the difference.
The interesting thing about science and the leaps and bounds is that this was done when revelation God-meddling etc was taken out of science and we learned that the world was ruled by rules.
Are you saying that DNA has magical properties? Because it behaves with consistent rules we know it ain't magic. Do you have any evidence that magic is necessary?
But isn't our lives rules by this very process - are you directing your own DNA synthesis? Think about it - where is the magic???????
I don't even think you know what a intermediate would look like if it bit you in the tuckus. If you don't know what characters it might have then how on earth are you poo-pooing the specimens I provide, which the experts consider to be intermediates.
but your the one judging them to be or not so you should have a clue what criteria you're using.
you're also not the one that reads enough
Nineveh
Merely Christian
I think that about sums up evo.
You bet. I've never seen any evidence. for example, that a peace of meat "evolves" maggots, have you?
Well, no.
I haven't heard any better theory to the beginning of life than abiogenesis for evo. Is there one? Or should we just shove that part under the rug and forget about it?
And yet you do correct others? Well, for the sake of understanding the terms used in evo science and their concepts, let's hope the others you correct don't escape your attention.
No, before the dinos to birds we had ape to man, both have as much evidence. I'm really sorry to hear evidence annoys evos.
I posted the whole Nature article about the new chromosome study. But I see you are back to Nature being the only news outlet lol
And you missed my question, didn't you? Where did you publish your "findings" and where might I find some "peer review" to your work?
Nineveh
Merely Christian
ID doesn't mention a Creator, I did
Except chemistry can't get two left handed amino acids to stick together, but I guess it's ok for you to go on faith it might have happened.To put it in my "uneducated lingo" a tree has never tuned into a dog.
Relation can be seen as the same building blocks being used, not necessarily "common decent".
Perhaps that is why Science isn't making the great leaps and bounds it once did, the dogma of chuck is in the way. I'll disagree with you about ID Scientists
So it's ok for evo to assume everything just magically appeared one day? Convenient
And the closer we look at DNA, I just have this feeling, the more evo Taxonomy will be stood on it's head. Strat said there is another term used on the DNA level than Taxonomy, molecular systematics, so let's keep our terms in line
So is this your out for all the time and money wasted while lamenting the ignorant masses? That's cheap.
I wonder, in comparison how many breakthroughs in science were discovered in garages and backyards by folks who didn't have degrees.
Kenyon and Behe changed their minds because of what they saw in the lab.
Mind giving me some info?
After only one comparison the differences are outstanding. So we shall see how many differences these comparisons yeild and how far evo will be willing to say, "none of the differences has been big enough to indicate that there is any problem with common descent."
I'm not going to go back and rehash the trash about junk DNA. My point is imply it seems evos are willing to let whatever a brother say slide, no matter how far fetched it may be. So I am careful to check out the evidence before I buy a ticket on evo airlines.
I can see chuck's ideas getting richer
At least in pullik skool
Nineveh
Merely Christian
While evo says... look! ancestors! and that's about it.
Either way non life doesn't produce life, no matter what ya wanna call it.
Right, like life arising from non living matter.
Sorry, maybe they will raise out taxes for that benefit.
So how did it happen then? I'd like to hear your theory
So far? Or should we wait for the rest of the coparisons to come in?
LOL
That got a rise dinnit?
Evo can not explain a soul, nor emotion, or humour. If you are looking for what makes us human in science, you will never find it.
Those who believe in God know we are governed by rules.
I'm trying to get to your understanding of the marvel of DNA and how it came into being.
I don't consider design "magic". I believe God made DNA in certain sequences to code for certain protiens and other functions. Now, please tell me, how nature put the info in DNA?
It's not me saying the links are still missing! Geewiz. Remember it's you guys that need missing links to prove we all came from a common ancestor.
No, I'm quoting things like retractions and the news about how the headlining "missing link" is really an "x", "y", or"z".
Have you bothered to take a look at the sizes of the posts you guys make to me?