alwight
New member
I'm rather sure that you wouldn't be thinking that an appendix had any kind of useful purpose if you were dying from appendicitis before appendectomies were available.
Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter MichaelCadry
- Start date
- Status
So no then, you can't quote Dawkins saying that recently. And actually what he wrote in The Selfish Gene is still significantly right, as far as we know.
But let me check: you are saying that some of the apparently non-coding DNA, even though it doesn't seem to have a direct translation into protein, must be under selection pressure in order to have been preserved virtually intact and therefore be able to be identified as functional in some way?
Good to see you agreeing with evolution by natural selection - that's the yardstick by which your claim is measured.
Unless you would like to retract that claim now it makes you appear to agree with natural selection...
Stuart
noguru
Well-known member
That is inaccurate.
1.) First it was Thomas Malthus, an economist whose ideas opened up Darwin's mind to the possibilities in the natural world. If you had actually read about his history you would know this. He also corresponded with Blyth, because Blyth was the current expert on artificial selection.
2.) Most people back then were YECs (as I have explained before). Because the history of humans was first based on the Biblical account. Precisely because we had not accumulated enough empirical evidence to see that time line was inaccurate.
I know I have covered this material before for you. And I know that you ignore me. But what you don't realize is that when you blatantly ignore reality, all that does is damage your own credibility.
The idea of natural selection was widely discussed amongst biologists well before Darwin published. The idea that Blyth lent the idea to Darwin has been disproved - Darwin had formulated his conception of natural selection before he could have read of Blyth. Darwin did acknowledge Blyth later, because Blyth was interested in domestication, and especially because Blyth drew Darwin's attention to Wallace's paper, which they agreed was a particularly well articulated description of natural selection.
And of course, like all those earlier Nineteenth Century biologists, Blyth got the rest wrong by asserting that natural selection weeds out the variants that aren't true to the species type. Darwin and Wallace realised that it was the generation of variants that led via natural selection to new species, fit for their environments.
Which I'd guess you know already.
Stuart
6days
New member
Darwin recognized a process that a God had created, but he failed to give credit to the Creator.Stuu said:
Not only is natural selection part of the creationist model, but so is rapid speciation. The ability of organisms to adapt quickly, and even speciate quickly is because of pre-existing info in their genomes. Natural selection simply selects info that God has given, allowing organisms to live in different environments.
.
Hedshaker
New member
Do you have good reason not to quote and address the rest of Stuu's post above? .
gcthomas
New member
Darwin DID credit God. Where did you get the idea he didn't?
Don't tell me you haven't actually read the book you're criticising!
alwight
New member
You need to make your mind up imo. If speciation can act so rapidly, yet not apparently so rapidly that it can be generally observed, then that really doesn't seem to fit too well with a claimed genetic decline from a previously supposed perfect creation.
Is observational science related in any way to observational creationism?
alwight
New member
Well, you told me previously that a sorry genetic decline (fall) was the reason for humanity's non-perfect construction, as I recall, right?
Now when it suits you want to claim that despite this genetic deterioration new species can spring up everywhere apparently at the drop of a hat, equipped with functioning genes and traits for whatever comes along. That would seem to suggest a surprisingly intact if not perfect gene-pool indeed, ...or do I mean an impossibly intact and prepared gene-pool? :think:
Then again perhaps I've got the woo wrong and only humans are declining (falling?), not other life?:liberals:
But no that can't be right either because most other animals are demonstrably just as imperfect?
Were they then created genetically imperfect maybe?
But perhaps I'm the one who's being a bit thick here and can't quite understand YEC "rational explanations"?
noguru
Well-known member
No, its definitely 6days who is confused. The Dunning Kruger effect strikes again.
noguru
Well-known member
Empirical evidence from every arena of the physical sciences and the life sciences is observed. That observed evidence is what leads to the conclusions we make. But I know you have no clue about any of this. This is exactly why knowledgeable and reasonable people just laugh at the claims made by YECs. You guys are incompetent so much so that you can't even recognize that in yourself.
Now you are parodying yourself.
But by all means, entertain us with the fantasy mechanism that makes this "possible"!
Stuart
Does it make you feel better that ALL of you are ganging up on one poster? gcthomas, hedshaker, stuu, noguru, alwight, jukia, all against 6days? What are the odds? Ridiculous!!
MichaelC
MichaelC
alwight
New member
What is ridiculous Michael is the misinformation that YEC propagandists feed people like 6days who want to believe it but who don't want to actually want to think it through using real facts and evidence.
YEC's would much rather think up fantasy alternative versions of reality simply because they fit better with a literal Genesis creation account more than physical reality would otherwise tend to suggest.
Get With The Program!
Get With The Program!
To All of You,
God created everything and He saw that it was Good (Not Necessarily Perfect, and what attains perfection??). God helped the creatures to adapt as necessary as He saw fit. HE DID IT. Not natural selection. He's the creator and can change things in all of us as He sees fit. Perhaps He got fed up with one race of men and women warring all the time and destroyed them all, and started over with a new Adam. It says that right in the book of Genesis, but since you've never read MY book, only YOUR papers, you don't know. He is in charge of whatever changes are made, no matter how small, including the amount of hairs on your head or chest. You DO NOT know how GREAT He is!! That is your worst problem. But it's something you've got to come to grips with before He returns and casts you aside because you never KNEW HIM!! BTW, I am not a YEC!
You Reap What You Sow!
Michael
:bang:
atrol:
Get With The Program!
To All of You,
God created everything and He saw that it was Good (Not Necessarily Perfect, and what attains perfection??). God helped the creatures to adapt as necessary as He saw fit. HE DID IT. Not natural selection. He's the creator and can change things in all of us as He sees fit. Perhaps He got fed up with one race of men and women warring all the time and destroyed them all, and started over with a new Adam. It says that right in the book of Genesis, but since you've never read MY book, only YOUR papers, you don't know. He is in charge of whatever changes are made, no matter how small, including the amount of hairs on your head or chest. You DO NOT know how GREAT He is!! That is your worst problem. But it's something you've got to come to grips with before He returns and casts you aside because you never KNEW HIM!! BTW, I am not a YEC!
You Reap What You Sow!
Michael
:bang:
atrol:- Status