Evolution... Do we believe?

[Jose Fly]

Stipe knows he's in trouble, so he's playing stupid, again.

This is why creationists constantly lose in court. You put a scientist up on the stand, and they'll answer questions in good faith. Put a creationist up there and they'll do everything in their power to avoid answering anything.

And that's one of the reasons creationism has been 100% scientifically irrelevant for over a century.

 

[6days]

.
Here's what DNA analysis shows:

God's Word tells us of the true tree of life. The tree you portray is a fantasy of evolutionists....proven wrong over and over again by science.

In 2009, the cover of New Scientist says "Darwin was Wrong...cutting down the tree of life"
The latest research shows Darwins tree is collapsing.

One of the scientists interviewed in that article W.F.Doolittle was also published in Scientific American (Feb 2000) saying the imagined tree of life is a tangled mess.

There is no evolutionary tree of life. Hundreds of different imaginary trees are in textbooks and journals all based on a belief system and similarities.

 

[The Barbarian]

God's Word tells us of the true tree of life.

You're a little confused. This isn't the "tree of life" published by Linnaeus. This is genetic data explaining why trees are more closely related to fish than most living things are related to each other.

The tree you portray is a fantasy of evolutionists....proven wrong over and over again by science.

As you learned, it's supported by DNA data, and we know that works, since we can test it on organisms of known descent. You're just making up stories, again. Do you think anyone doesn't reallize it?

In 2009, the cover of New Scientist says "Darwin was Wrong...cutting down the tree of life"

Darwin was wrong about a lot of things. But not common descent. As you know, nested hierarchies only happen in common descent. And DNA analysis demonstrated that he was right.

What the article is about, is lateral gene transfer. Common in prokaryotes, but unusual to "almost never" in eukaryotes for reasons you learned some time ago. Single-celled protists have some of it. Fungi and plants a little more. Animals seem to have the least evidence of such transfer. Would you like me to remind you, again?

The latest research shows Darwins tree is collapsing.

Since DNA analysis and other new techniques have continued to support Darwin's finding of common descent, you will need more than imaginary 'research.'

Learn about it here...

In horizontal gene transfer, newly acquired DNA is incorporated into the genome of the recipient through either recombination or insertion. Recombination essentially is the regrouping of genes, such that native and foreign (new) DNA segments that are homologous are edited and combined. Insertion occurs when the foreign DNA introduced into a cell shares no homology with existing DNA. In this case, the new genetic material is embedded between existing genes in the recipient’s genome.

Compared with prokaryotes, the process of horizontal gene transfer in eukaryotes is much more complex, mainly because acquired DNA must pass through both the outer cell membrane and the nuclear membrane to reach the eukaryote’s genome. Subcellular sorting and signaling pathways play a central role in the transport of DNA to the genome.
http://www.britannica.com/science/horizontal-gene-transfer

 

[everready]

Creation Science was the prevailing belief system before the rise of geology in the late 18th Century. The early European scientists, from Galileo, to Copernicus, to Newton, all believed in a literal interpretation of the Bible's account of Creation. Historians have made many estimates for the date of creation, including 3761, 3928, 4004, and 4456 BCE. The most generally accepted date was established by Bishop Ussher: 4004-OCT-22 BCE.

With the rise of the scientific intelligencia, and the woeful apostasy of modern times, the ridiculous THEORIES of the origin of the universe have been used by Satan as a Trojan Horse for many other sins.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution Hoax/devilution.htm


everready

 

[6days]

Science has helped confirm the truth of God's Word, debunking many evolutionary beliefs along the way, such as "junk" DNA....transitional humans...."simple" cells, etc.

Junk DNA in the Bible? Really?*

Strawman....*

Be sure to let me know when you have some God-specific Creator indicating evidence to show me.*

We can keep presenting evidence.... you can keep denying. Your approach to origins science is religious... as explained by Harvard prof Richard Lewontin"we (evolutionists)are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.*[/QUOTE]

For example...just a few years ago the fossil 'Ida' was hailed as an important transitional link leading to humans. Now that science has debunked that, evolutionists say 'Ida' was interesting but not important.

That's rather how you can tell that science is working to peer review and falsify previous conclusions, and how science corrects its own interpretations if they are not totally accurate. If scientists were really stuck in a rut of evolutionary bias then no such corrections would ever happen and science would be in a mess.

Don't confuse the numerous shoddy conclusions (and frauds) in origins 'science', with real science. *You can't blame science for things like Haeckels faked embryos, the phoney peppered moth 'research',*Hesperopithecus, Piltdown,*Archaeoraptor*and much more.*

Fortunately science often corrects the evolutionists showing Biblical creationists were correct. (Evolutionist arguments. ..Junk DNA, useless organs, Neandertals, Sebida, *poorly designed eyes, psuedogenes, etc)*

I think some of us only have some Neanderthal DNA, but it's a gross overstatement to say we are descended from them, since clearly many of us are not.

Aside from you being wrong about that... you arw attempting to move the goalposts.

You said it would be "interesting" If I could show anything to support my statement that most non Africans are descendants of Neandertals. I gave you an article from 2011.

Here is another, although with a heavy evolutionary bias still admits...About 2 per cent of many people’s genomes today is made up of*Neanderthal DNA, a result of interbreeding between the two species that can be seen in everyone except people from sub-Saharan Africa.*https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26435-thoroughly-modern-humans-interbred-with-neanderthals/

So you say but since they(Neandertals) lived and died out long before your supposed creation event, it isn't exactly the Bible according to YECs anyway.

Evolutionists thought Neandertals were an evutionary dead end, never interbreeding with humans... They were wrong.

Evolutionists claimed Neandertals were incapable of articulate speech... They were wrong.

Evolutionists claimed Neandertals were dim witted.... They were wrong.

Evolutionists claimed Neandertals had no culture and didn't bury their dead.... They were wrong.

Evolutionists portrayed Neandertals as stooped over hairy beasts.... They were wrong.

Evolutionists said Neandertals would have been carnivores.... They were wrong.

Evolutionists said Neandertals we're a separate species from us... They were wrong.*

So.. *evolutionists have a proven track record of being consistently wrong. *So when you suggest Neandertals existed before Adam and Eve... its just one more item to add to the list of things they have been wrong on.*

 

[6days]

You're a little confused. This isn't the "tree of life" published by Linnaeus. This is genetic data explaining why trees are more closely related to fish than most living things are related to each other.

You are very confused. Genetic similarities between trees and fish have nothing to do with common descent, *and everything to do with .......

"Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation:*seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds...

*And there was evening, and there was morning--the third day.*"
*So God created*the great creatures of the sea*and every living and moving thing with which the water teems,*according to their kinds...

And there was evening, and there was morning--the fifth day."

Then land animals were created the following day... For the hard of understanding God keeps emphasizing, "after their kind" (ten times in the 1st chapter)...and for the hard of understanding, God repeats that each day had a morning and evening.

After the animals... God created man from the dust... not from pre-existing genetic material. Genetic similarities *can only be connected to the Creator.

 

[Stripe]

How do you know trees and fish are different "kinds"?

By looking at them.

This is why creationists constantly lose in court. You put a scientist up on the stand, and they'll answer questions in good faith. Put a creationist up there and they'll do everything in their power to avoid answering anything.

And that's one of the reasons creationism has been 100% scientifically irrelevant for over a century.

:yawn:

It is the evolutionists who cannot answer questions. What is a "species"?

 

[alwight]

Strawman...

Then I suggest that you don't make up stupid claims and try to associate them with "God's Word" (The Bible presumably).
Fat chance...

We can keep presenting evidence.... you can keep denying. Your approach to origins science is religious... as explained by Harvard prof Richard Lewontin"we (evolutionists)are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.*

I really don't find your uncited context-free selected quote mines to be particularly impressive 6days, I sense some YEC dishonesty going on here. :nono:
However on face value by definition science is not about anyone's Divine entity, it can't be since it must deal only with material reality, so what is your point?
Non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA)
Are you suggesting here that there is something conspiratorial about his remarks, that some scientists are allowing supernatural agents to creep into their work and need to be rebuked into toeing the line? :sherlock:
Perhaps the world-wide scientific conspiracy against a YEC God is finally beginning to fall apart? :shocked:
Oh noes, disaster looms, the evolutionist's house of cards is collapsing, man the ramparts, the truth must not be allowed to come out....etc.

Don't confuse the numerous shoddy conclusions (and frauds) in origins 'science', with real science. *You can't blame science for things like Haeckels faked embryos, the phoney peppered moth 'research',*Hesperopithecus, Piltdown,*Archaeoraptor*and much more.*

Piltdown man gets another outing I see. :yawn:

Fortunately science often corrects the evolutionists showing Biblical creationists were correct. (Evolutionist arguments. ..Junk DNA, useless organs, Neandertals, Sebida, *poorly designed eyes, psuedogenes, etc)*

It's really no use you churning this out this stuff which in fact despite what you say is consistent with Darwinian evolution, while pretending it isn't or has been debunked simply because some YEC wacko somewhere makes up stuff used as eye candy on the Discovery Institute's website. :AMR:

Aside from you being wrong about that... you arw attempting to move the goalposts.

You said it would be "interesting" If I could show anything to support my statement that most non Africans are descendants of Neandertals. I gave you an article from 2011.

Pretending that I'm the one who is wrong here is a bit rich imo if not entirely unexpected, please stop making stuff up 6days, I didn't talk about those with African origins that was Barbarian iirc. Btw perhaps you hadn't noticed but African originated people do make a sizable proportion of western societies and which I included them as being "us".

Here is another, although with a heavy evolutionary bias still admits...About 2 per cent of many people’s genomes today is made up of*Neanderthal DNA, a result of interbreeding between the two species that can be seen in everyone except people from sub-Saharan Africa.*https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26435-thoroughly-modern-humans-interbred-with-neanderthals/

Since I have not suggested anything that your link even slightly contradicts then please do remind me of your point here?

Evolutionists thought Neandertals were an evutionary dead end, never interbreeding with humans... They were wrong.

6days you are again confused, we are not descended from Neanderthals as you said but many of us have some of their DNA which is what I have said all along. Neanderthals are nevertheless a dead end who died out long before your supposed YEC creation.

Evolutionists claimed Neandertals were incapable of articulate speech... They were wrong.

Evolutionists claimed Neandertals were dim witted.... They were wrong.

Evolutionists claimed Neandertals had no culture and didn't bury their dead.... They were wrong.

Evolutionists portrayed Neandertals as stooped over hairy beasts.... They were wrong.

Evolutionists said Neandertals would have been carnivores.... They were wrong.

Evolutionists said Neandertals we're a separate species from us... They were wrong.*

So.. *evolutionists have a proven track record of being consistently wrong. *So when you suggest Neandertals existed before Adam and Eve... its just one more item to add to the list of things they have been wrong on.*

I have no idea who these "evolutionists" are you are talking about or when or in what context you are plucking these assertions from, all I know is that it was nothing I ever claimed other than parts of the first [dead end, from above] and the last in which you are wrong.
They (Homo neanderthalensis) are an evolutionary dead end who apparently did on occasion interbreed with some homo sapiens but again long before your supposed (non-extant) YEC Creation.
They were a separate species but with sufficiently close DNA to allow for interbreeding of at least some viable offspring.

 

[Jose Fly]

By looking at them.

And what are you looking for, to tell you whether they are two different "kinds" or the same "kind"?

 

[Jose Fly]

The tree you portray is a fantasy of evolutionists....proven wrong over and over again by science.

Except when, as you've been shown several times, scientists actually want to generate useful results, such as when they use such evolutionary relationships to discern genetic function.

In 2009, the cover of New Scientist says "Darwin was Wrong...cutting down the tree of life"
The latest research shows Darwins tree is collapsing.

Look everyone, 6days read a headline! :chuckle:

One of the scientists interviewed in that article W.F.Doolittle was also published in Scientific American (Feb 2000) saying the imagined tree of life is a tangled mess.

Do you have that quote, complete with the surrounding context?

 

[Jose Fly]

Creation Science was the prevailing belief system before the rise of geology in the late 18th Century.

And it hasn't contributed a single thing since.

 

[Jose Fly]

Evolutionists thought Neandertals were an evutionary dead end, never interbreeding with humans... They were wrong.

Some did, others didn't and were correct.

Some creationists thought blacks bear the "curse of Ham" and all the associated racism that goes with it. Were they wrong?

 

[Jose Fly]

Genetic similarities between trees and fish have nothing to do with common descent, *and everything to do with .......

"Then God said,

And there ya' go....this is what creationists think is science. "God did it". :rotfl:

 

[The Barbarian]

It is the evolutionists who cannot answer questions.

Actually, you claimed to have a testable definition for "species", but never got around to showing us.

What is a "species"?

Creationism says it should be easy to define the term. Evolutionary theory, starting with Darwin, predicts that there can't be a universally-applicable definition. It's another reason scientists don't accept creationism. But now maybe you're willing to step up and show us that definition you claim to have. Let's see what you've got.

 

[The Barbarian]

Some creationists thought blacks bear the "curse of Ham" and all the associated racism that goes with it. Were they wrong?

The modern creationist argument is:

Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they have eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites.
ICR director Henry Morris

 

[alwight]

Stripe has maybe a dozen fauna "kinds" to define easily or otherwise but can't it seems, I have no idea how many flora "kinds", but who cares it's all cobblers anyway? :chuckle:
Back in the real world there are perhaps 8.7 million species. The vast amount of those would seem to be easily defined apart just by not being able to interbreed, leaving only a few that will require extra factors to be considered. That's not too shabby imo.

 

[everready]

The Pagan Roots of Evolution: Be Prepared For Surprises!

The Pagan Roots of Evolution: Be Prepared For Surprises!

And it hasn't contributed a single thing since.

"...The mythical view has grown that evolution is the product of great intelligence and high scientific skill and that it took a scientific genius (Darwin) to unravel it, but the truth is that the concept is very, very old and first developed among the pagans. All that is required is a highly-enquiring mind and a complete lack of knowledge of the true, Monotheist God, or, a determination to rebelliously turn one's back on Him; interestingly, in this regard, Darwin turned his back on God after initially commencing a theology degree and planning to be a vicar."


Did it really take the (so-called) "genius of Darwin" to put together the theory of evolution? Or could it actually be possible that ancient Indian pagans held a very similar teaching, that it then spread to the Greeks who pretty much rounded off the teaching by the time of Christ? Did it not take a "scientific genius" to produce the teaching after all, just a society with a thirst for knowledge but having no knowledge of the True God? Of course, in this regard, Darwin's society were without excuse in turning their collective backs on the truth.

http://www.ukapologetics.net/09/1holden.htm


everready

 

[Stripe]

And what are you looking for, to tell you whether they are two different "kinds" or the same "kind"?

With trees and fish, it's just kinda obvious. :idunno:

What is a species?

 

[Stripe]

And there ya' go....this is what creationists think is science. "God did it". :rotfl:

Nope. A scientist is willing to clearly define his ideas and allow them to be tested; something the creationists here have done, but the evolutionists have avoided like a vampire has to avoid sunlight.

 

[Ben Masada]

So you think that man hasn't had any effect on the evolution of other living beings?

Yes, I do, through the manipulation of their instinct.