Creation vs. Evolution

[alwight]

None of the examples are reasons why anyone in that group with the mutations mentioned are, any more or less, said to be able to produce more offspring because of their mutation.

Only it's actually about producing offspring that will stick around long enough to produce offspring.

Malaria does not or ever did kill everyone that ever had it.

Sickle cell shortens the life of those who have it. "Life expectancy is shortened. In 1994, in the US, the average life expectancy of persons with this condition was estimated to be 42 years in males and 48 years in females, but today, thanks to better management of the disease, patients can live into their 70s or beyond"--Wiki

If the malaria did not get you, the sickle cell that saved you killed you in the end.

As long a person lives long enough to reproduce is all that concerns evolution.

In any event sickle cell gives no advantage in the number of offspring those with it can produce.

I think you are still missing the point Dave, the more of an individual's offspring that are able to reproduce amounts to the same thing as an overall increase.

Sickle cell is not a mutation that any one in their right mind would say is another step in the evolution of man.

--Dave

I'd agree that sickle cell would not be something that a right minded intelligent designer would consider building into a creation, but if it does provide some resistance and an increased fecundity then evolution doesn't give a damn, it will just use it and clearly does.

 

[alwight]

And what good are ERV's if they have no support from the fossil record?

--Dave

The point is Dave that ERVs are pretty conclusive evidence and imo virtual proof of common descent that is available from living individuals today, no fossils are required.

 

[noguru]

Only it's actually about producing offspring that will stick around long enough to produce offspring.


As long a person lives long enough to reproduce is all that concerns evolution.

I think you are still missing the point Dave, the more of an individual's offspring that are able to reproduce amounts to the same thing as an overall increase.

I'd agree that sickle cell would not be something that a right minded intelligent designer would consider building into a creation, but if it does provide some resistance and an increased fecundity then evolution doesn't give a damn, it will just use it and clearly does.

Dave, does not seem to get the idea of tradeoffs. Evolution will lead to a gene pool changing from one survival strategy to another. He was complaining earlier about how he does not understand how intelligence would evolve as a successful strategy in humans. And in doing so he fails to recognize how our increased intelligence is both an advantage in one aspect, and a disadvantage in another. More brain power goes to manual manipulation, symbolism and therefore a greater capacity to plan and prepare for complex scenarios. But only at the expense of the physical vigor and the muscular strength we see in other mammals.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Dave, does not seem to get the idea of tradeoffs. Evolution will lead to a gene pool changing from one survival strategy to another. He was complaining earlier about how he does not understand how intelligence would evolve as a successful strategy in humans. And in doing so he fails to recognize how our increased intelligence is both an advantage in one aspect, and a disadvantage in another. More brain power goes to manual manipulation, symbolism and therefore a greater capacity to plan and prepare for complex scenarios. But only at the expense of the physical vigor and the muscular strength we see in other mammals.

What a joke.
There have always been strong, weak, wise and foolish.
Strong wise, strong foolish.
Weak wise, weak foolish.
And until Christ returns there always will be.
There is nothing new under the sun.

 

[Tyrathca]

What a joke.
There have always been strong, weak, wise and foolish.
Strong wise, strong foolish.
Weak wise, weak foolish.
And until Christ returns there always will be.
There is nothing new under the sun.

You miss the point entirely. Human brains require exorbitant amounts of energy to run compared to other animals, therefore historically humans generally had less energy to put towards muscle growth and maintenance. Ergo we were generally weaker than other species in our ecological niches.

For someone who claims to have "graduated in the top 5% of the united states in academics" you aren't all that bright or educated on fairly basic matters. Or were you just lying for Jesus? :think:

 

[Silent Hunter]

Or were you just lying for Jesus?

That's funny.

:mock: Liars for Jesus

 

[6days]

Evolution is the changing frequency of alleles in the gene pool, not the increase of information. Can you find any research paper that describes the essential increase in information, 6days?

Changing frequency of alleles in a gene poo isl observable empirical science. It fits the Biblical creationist model allowing organisms to adapt to changing environment. We can call that evolution if you wish.

However if you then use the word 'evolution' referring to your belief in a common ancestor, you are committing the fallacy of equovocation. The one definition is observable science; while the second definition is a belief system not supported by evidence.

And yes there are plenty of papers acknowledging that there has to be some mechanism that increases genetic information, if ToE is true. In fact extensive research has been done on bacteria and flies, trying to tweak their genome a with mutations. Thousands upon thousands of hours in the lab,has produced countless examples of a loss of information mutation. But evolutionists can't account for for the pre-existing information.... And they can even manipulate that information to cause the gain that molecules to man evolution needs.

Here is one example showing that desperate length evolutionista will go too trying to find a gain of information..... in 'Trends in Genetics', there was an article titled“A golden age for evolutionary genetics? Genomic studies of adaptation in natural populations"

The article states “Of course, to some extent the difference between loss and gain could be a question of semantics, so for example the loss of trichomes (epidermal cells on flies) could be called gain of naked cuticle"
HA HA HA....Aren't they funny? They want to call a loss of something a gain. SURE!!!!! Are they really so desperate? It like plucking feathers from an eagle, then claiming it has gained the ability to remain grounded.
The evidence best fits the Biblical creation model. Life was created by the Supreme Intelligence, and programmed with information allowing adaptation to various environments. In the beginning, God created. .

 

[doloresistere]

You miss the point entirely. Human brains require exorbitant amounts of energy to run compared to other animals, therefore historically humans generally had less energy to put towards muscle growth and maintenance. Ergo we were generally weaker than other species in our ecological niches.

For someone who claims to have "graduated in the top 5% of the united states in academics" you aren't all that bright or educated on fairly basic matters. Or were you just lying for Jesus? :think:

Evolution is not high on the list of things taught in college if you are not a science major.

 

[alwight]

Changing frequency of alleles in a gene poo isl observable empirical science. It fits the Biblical creationist model allowing organisms to adapt to changing environment. We can call that evolution if you wish.

Actually creationist "evolution" needs a mega fast forward function since only generic "kinds" could have hoped to have all fitted on that gopher-wood barge a few thousand years ago.

However if you then use the word 'evolution' referring to your belief in a common ancestor, you are committing the fallacy of equovocation. The one definition is observable science; while the second definition is a belief system not supported by evidence.

Common ancestry is rather what best explains the evidence such as observable ERVs within DNA sequences.

And yes there are plenty of papers acknowledging that there has to be some mechanism that increases genetic information, if ToE is true. In fact extensive research has been done on bacteria and flies, trying to tweak their genome a with mutations. Thousands upon thousands of hours in the lab,has produced countless examples of a loss of information mutation. But evolutionists can't account for for the pre-existing information.... And they can even manipulate that information to cause the gain that molecules to man evolution needs.

Here is one example showing that desperate length evolutionista will go too trying to find a gain of information..... in 'Trends in Genetics', there was an article titled“A golden age for evolutionary genetics? Genomic studies of adaptation in natural populations"

The article states “Of course, to some extent the difference between loss and gain could be a question of semantics, so for example the loss of trichomes (epidermal cells on flies) could be called gain of naked cuticle"
HA HA HA....Aren't they funny? They want to call a loss of something a gain. SURE!!!!! Are they really so desperate? It like plucking feathers from an eagle, then claiming it has gained the ability to remain grounded.
The evidence best fits the Biblical creation model. Life was created by the Supreme Intelligence, and programmed with information allowing adaptation to various environments. In the beginning, God created. .

So it's a global scientific conspiracy then and we should believe YECs instead? Even though for them a literal Genesis must always take precedence over any rigorous and peer reviewed science, however convincing, well explained and evidenced it is.

 

[gcthomas]

Changing frequency of alleles in a gene poo isl observable empirical science. It fits the Biblical creationist model allowing organisms to adapt to changing environment. We can call that evolution if you wish.

However if you then use the word 'evolution' referring to your belief in a common ancestor, you are committing the fallacy of equovocation. The one definition is observable science; while the second definition is a belief system not supported by evidence.

And yes there are plenty of papers acknowledging that there has to be some mechanism that increases genetic information, if ToE is true. In fact extensive research has been done on bacteria and flies, trying to tweak their genome a with mutations. Thousands upon thousands of hours in the lab,has produced countless examples of a loss of information mutation. But evolutionists can't account for for the pre-existing information.... And they can even manipulate that information to cause the gain that molecules to man evolution needs.

Here is one example showing that desperate length evolutionista will go too trying to find a gain of information..... in 'Trends in Genetics', there was an article titled“A golden age for evolutionary genetics? Genomic studies of adaptation in natural populations"

The article states “Of course, to some extent the difference between loss and gain could be a question of semantics, so for example the loss of trichomes (epidermal cells on flies) could be called gain of naked cuticle"
HA HA HA....Aren't they funny? They want to call a loss of something a gain. SURE!!!!! Are they really so desperate? It like plucking feathers from an eagle, then claiming it has gained the ability to remain grounded.
The evidence best fits the Biblical creation model. Life was created by the Supreme Intelligence, and programmed with information allowing adaptation to various environments. In the beginning, God created. .

YOU are the one obsessed with the idea of information, but not so obsessed that you have taken the time to understand what a concept of information can and cannot tell you. You wave around this information idea like it is a magic shield against all arguments. It is not a magic bullet that sinks evolution, whether you idolise the idea or not.

So we have the unedifying sight of you poking evolution with little pins hoping that it will die a death of a thousand cuts. But it hasn't. You seem to think that no-one has thought to apply information theory to organisms: they have, and with the expertise that you can only dream of.

Why is your faith not strong enough to just reject evolution despite the evidence for it? Why do you feel the need to have your faith validated by science?

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

You miss the point entirely. Human brains require exorbitant amounts of energy to run compared to other animals, therefore historically humans generally had less energy to put towards muscle growth and maintenance. Ergo we were generally weaker than other species in our ecological niches.

For someone who claims to have "graduated in the top 5% of the united states in academics" you aren't all that bright or educated on fairly basic matters. Or were you just lying for Jesus? :think:

I did not study Nogurus fantasy world, purdy shore it werent on the curriculum.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Actually creationist "evolution" needs a mega fast forward function since only generic "kinds" could have hoped to have all fitted on that gopher-wood barge a few thousand years ago.

Common ancestry is rather what best explains the evidence such as observable ERVs within DNA sequences.

So it's a global scientific conspiracy then and we should believe YECs instead? Even though for them a literal Genesis must always take precedence over any rigorous and peer reviewed science, however convincing, well explained and evidenced it is.

Fossils, genetics, turn it over that sides cooked, and with the research being done by EUM scientists, Einstein and the space cadets are bout done on that side too.

Here it is ten days later, maybe its time to wonder which ones you have been duped by.

Although I suspect an equal amount of both.


March 3rd:

Originally Posted by gcthomas
Dave/6Days only presented a series of misrepresentations and hopeful misdirections. They only have a surface level of understanding of the science they are trying to critique, but it will take a real expert to find a fault in the theory now since all the entry level corrections have already been made.

The reason ToE hasn't been falsified isn't that there is a worldwide conspiracy, but because it is very close to the truth.

Originally Posted by 1Mind1Spirit

Entry level corrections being made?

Proving them to be lies is the correction.

If there is no conspiracy, then you have believed a bunch of booger eating morons claiming to be smarter than you.


If I were in yer shoes, I would rather believe I was fooled by clever conspirators than idiots.

But to each their own I reckon.

Which is it Alwight?
Conspirators or idiots?

 

[alwight]

Fossils, genetics, turn it over that sides cooked, and with the research being done by EUM scientists, Einstein and the space cadets are bout done on that side too.

Here it is ten days later, maybe its time to wonder which ones you have been duped by.

Although I suspect an equal amount of both.


March 3rd:





Which is it Alwight?
Conspirators or idiots?

Firstly I suspect that all the cognitive dissonance has been taking its toll on you, I apologise for any part I had in that, perhaps a nice lie down somewhere dark? :think:

I'm reasonably convinced anyway that typically scientists in their own fields are clearly not idiots and know far more than lay people, including me.
Is there perhaps a global conspiracy being foisted on us by evil atheistic scientists?
Of course not, utterly impossible.
Any such huge water tight conspiracy would be well beyond the abilities of any group of human beings, including scientists, or even particularly scientists.
You tell me Spirit, YECs seem to need scientists to be either idiots or conspiratorial to fit their "model", what do you think?

 

[noguru]

I did not study Nogurus fantasy world, purdy shore it werent on the curriculum.

You are quite a piece of work. You claim to have great aptitude, or have graduated in the top 5% in higher education. Yet you demonstrate a very poor understanding of every area of science. You may not like what science has to say about things. But you should at least try to understand that which you oppose. You are not fooling anyone but yourself.

What did you study, by the way, basket weaving?

 

[noguru]

Evolution is not high on the list of things taught in college if you are not a science major.

Yes, I realize quite a few neo cons have decided to reject a good education in the liberal arts and sciences. That is because they are too stupid to realize that having an education in the liberal arts and sciences does not necessarily make one a liberal. Plus they are too cowardly to actually face reality squarely. Well in the end it is their loss. They are the ones who end up acting like complete idiots.

 

[DFT_Dave]

You have grabbed the wrong end of the stick here, Dave.

Sickle cell anaemia is caused by having two copies of the allele, while having one allele protects you against both the anaemia and malaria.

So, in populations where malaria is endemic, there is a population reproducting advantage to having the sickle cell allele reasonably common, enough to give lots of people one copy but not too many two copies. The sickle cell disease is recessive, but the protection against malaria is dominant.

In a similar way the cystic fibrosis gene, which kills 1 in 2500 caucasians, may offer protection against typhoid fever (15% fatality), which has prevented the gene from being removed from the gene pool.

Again this does not tell me that we evolved from a common ancestor with apes.

And you think there has been no information added by mutations to the gene pool of man over the last 4 million years?

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Only it's actually about producing offspring that will stick around long enough to produce offspring.

As long a person lives long enough to reproduce is all that concerns evolution.

I think you are still missing the point Dave, the more of an individual's offspring that are able to reproduce amounts to the same thing as an overall increase.

I'd agree that sickle cell would not be something that a right minded intelligent designer would consider building into a creation, but if it does provide some resistance and an increased fecundity then evolution doesn't give a damn, it will just use it and clearly does.

Nothing you are saying tells me how we got to here from way back there.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

The point is Dave that ERVs are pretty conclusive evidence and imo virtual proof of common descent that is available from living individuals today, no fossils are required.

Yes, thank you. And that has become the biggest change of all in the evolution of the theory of evolution, no fossils required. I could not have said it better.

The reason is not because DNA is all we need but rather because the fossil record has failed to prove that evolution occurred.

--Dave

 

[alwight]

Nothing you are saying tells me how we got to here from way back there.

--Dave

OK but I rather doubt anyway that a purely naturalistic explanation of any kind holds any interests for you.
The ToE is suich a natural explanation but still remains "only a theory" as they say, which won't ever be proven, but it does seem to adequately explain the evidence and remains unfalsified to this day.
As a naturalistic explanation the ToE seems as good as it gets to me and I don't think there will ever be a better one.
You otoh perhaps don't like the ToE, not because you can show it to be wrong, but because you simply don't want there to be a naturalistic answer at all.

No natural explanation would ever satisfy you I suspect Dave yet you can't seem to provide any evidence of what you would prefer to have happened instead. Rational and natural scientific conclusions are imo an inconvenience to your presuppositional blind faith in a creation myth.

 

[alwight]

Yes, thank you. And that has become the biggest change of all in the evolution of the theory of evolution, no fossils required. I could not have said it better.

The reason is not because DNA is all we need but rather because the fossil record has failed to prove that evolution occurred.

--Dave

You never seem to stop requiring proof for a theory, but neither can you falsify it. :sigh:
I don't see much point in us concentrating on one aspect of evidence in isolation when so much is complimentary.
Maybe you would like all the vast quantities of fossil evidence to simply go away by claiming it isn't proof? I otoh find it interesting how all the natural sciences seem to point in the same direction, perhaps you'd like them all to go away Dave?