Right Divider
Body part
Don't forget about the part where life came from non-life by some unknown and miraculous event.
Scientists Question Darwinism
- Thread starter Jerry Shugart
- Start date
You just can't help yourself. You just gotta do it again. I'm talking about your reliance on logical fallacies. You lift one sentence out of the context of the entire paragraph, where by the way, the author noted that there were three geographic areas where the geologic column does actually exist, and pretend that sentence is all that was said. That's what's known as the straw man fallacy. You know it, yet create it anyway. Did you think no one would recognize it and call you on your lack of sound reasoning?
It's just like the rest of my post showed. Evolutionists tend to rely a lot on fallacious reasoning to support their theory. You've created two in this thread alone and I've pointed out the reliance on fallacious reasoning of using the theory to read the fossil evidence and then saying fossil evidence supports the theory. You'll never convince anyone you're correct by using logical fallacies for logical fallacies are just cleverly constructed lies.
Also, I have to laugh at your request for me to explain the theory you support using logical falllacies. You must think I'm some ignorant hick that just fell of the turnip wagon. If the theory was valid no one would be using logical fallacies to make it sound good. But, evolutionists are forced into it because the theory just doesn't hold water. Oh, and your "directly observed" evidence? Like Lucy? Like the Piltdown man? And the rest of the frauds perpetrated by evolutionists because they can't fill in the missing links? How about the odds against evolution being true? I will quote Francis Crick who won the Nobel Prize for his part in determining the DNA sequence. He is speaking, in the following quote about proteins and how complex their structure is
Hemoglobin has an protein sequence that is 287 amino acids long. Having just one of them out of sequence results in sickle cell anemia. That means that protein, one of a huge number of proteins in the human body, had to come together perfectly the very first time otherwise the person died for without modern medical treatments sickle cell anemia is fatal. And then look at all the proteins that life requires. They had to come together perfectly the very first time. The odds against that? Coffin, from the above quote, figured the odds for a cell 1/10 the size of the smallest cell known to scientists coming together, by chance, perfectly so the organism would have the necessary molecules, amino acids, and proteins to support life is 1 followed by 340 million zeros. That number is greater than the number of molecules in the universe. And remember the way odds work. One random attempt does not increase the odds of the next random attempt. The odds remain at 1 followed by 340 million zeros.
He knows he will get called on them; he just counts on being able to keep peddling nonsense. I guess he gets a kick out of it. :idunno:
Yeah, you may be right, but what I post isn't really for him at all as I know he will ignore it and keep on with his same line of baloney. I post it for those out there who read and haven't actually made up their mind as yet as to what is true. I just try to give them both sides of the question and point out the fallacies inherent in evolution. It's up to them what they will believe, but the honest in heart will turn away from evolution as they will follow truth rather than error.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
i learned from your post - keep up the good work! :thumb:
Thanks. I try to present as much evidence as this type of communication allows. If you like my posts you would love the book I am taking this information out of: Tornado in a Junkyard by James Perloff. You can get a used copy for less than $10 from thriftbooks.com . If you buy $10.01, or more, of books the shipping is free. I buy quite a few books from there and they carry several of James Perloff's books. His books Shadows of Power and Truth is a Lonely Warrior on the Council on Foreign Relations are excellent books for understanding what has been happening to the US for the last 100+ years and why it has been happening. They're a good way to really begin to understand the foundations of the deep state. They are as well-documented as Tornado in a Junkyard.
Let's take a look...he wrote:
The entire column, composed of complete strata systems, exists only in the diagrams drawn by geologists.
This is quite false, of course. He contradicted himself, yes. But as you now realize, the entire geological column exists in more places than mentioned. Which is pretty remarkable, when you realize how unlikely it is that there was more deposition than erosion in those areas over every geological period.
If your guy was right, it wouldn't exist anywhere. I was merely pointing out that he was wrong to say that the geological column exists only in geologists' charts.
No, it's a simple falsehood. What he wrote is false.
YECs tend to rely a lot on fallacious reasoning to support their theory. You've created two in this thread alone and I've pointed out the reliance on fallacious reasoning of using the theory to read the fossil evidence and then saying fossil evidence supports the theory.[/quote]
And now you've given us an excellent example of a strawman. In fact, the numerous transitional series were predicted by evolutionary theory long before they were discovered, confirming the theory. Even honest YECs admit this:
Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
YEC Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms
Wise candidly admits he prefers his reading of Genesis to the evidence. But he's honest enough to admit that the fossil records is very good evidence for "macroevolutionary theory."
See above. You're a little confused.
Everyone is ignorant of something. This is just one of those things you don't know much about. As Wise points out, you really don't understand the fossil evidence.
Yep. You can observe it almost everywhere in living things. It seems that you've confused "evolution" with the agency of evolution (natural selection), and perhaps with the consequences of evolution (common descent). Perhaps we could clear that up if you told us what you think the scientific definition of "evolution" is. What do you think it is?
Notice that an honest and informed YEC admits that the hominid series is very good evidence for evolution. He knows what you don't.
Since it's directly observed to happen, the odds against it being true are 0.000. I'm guessing you're thinking instead of the origin of life, which most YECs conflate with evolutionary theory.
Since 93.5 percent of all internet statistics are just made up from imagination, let's see your calculations.
There's several things wrong with you guess:
1. Hemoglobin didn't appear out of nowhere.
Hemoglobins from bacteria to man: evolution of different patterns of gene expression.
R Hardison
Journal of Experimental Biology 1998 201: 1099-1117
The discovery of hemoglobins in virtually all kingdoms of organisms has shown (1) that the ancestral gene for hemoglobin is ancient, and (2) that hemoglobins can serve additional functions besides transport of oxygen between tissues, ranging from intracellular oxygen transport to catalysis of redox reactions. These different functions of the hemoglobins illustrate the acquisition of new roles by a pre-existing structural gene, which requires changes not only in the coding regions but also in the regulatory elements of the genes. The evolution of different regulated functions within an ancient gene family allows an examination of the types of biosequence data that are informative for various types of issues. Alignment of amino acid sequences is informative for the phylogenetic relationships among the hemoglobins in bacteria, fungi, protists, plants and animals. Although many of these diverse hemoglobins are induced by low oxygen concentrations, to date none of the molecular mechanisms for their hypoxic induction shows common regulatory proteins; hence, a search for matches in non-coding DNA sequences would not be expected to be fruitful. Indeed, alignments of non-coding DNA sequences do not reveal significant matches even between mammalian alpha- and beta-globin gene clusters, which diverged approximately 450 million years ago and are still expressed in a coordinated and balanced manner. They are in very different genomic contexts that show pronounced differences in regulatory mechanisms. The alpha-globin gene is in constitutively active chromatin and is encompassed by a CpG island, which is a dominant determinant of its regulation, whereas the beta-globin gene is in A+T-rich genomic DNA. Non-coding sequence matches are not seen between avian and mammalian beta-globin gene clusters, which diverged approximately 250 million years ago, despite the fact that regulation of both gene clusters requires tissue-specific activation of a chromatin domain regulated by a locus control region. The cis-regulatory sequences needed for domain opening and enhancement do show common binding sites for transcription factors. In contrast, alignments of non-coding sequences from species representing multiple eutherian mammalian orders, some of which diverged as long as 135 million years ago, are reliable predictors of novel cis-regulatory elements, both proximal and distal to the genes. Examples include a potential target for the hematopoietic transcription factor TAL1.
2. As I said, evolutionary theory isn't about the way life began. Darwin, for example, thought that God just created the first living things:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species, 1878
Derf
Well-known member
Usually "several" means more than two.
But even those two are questionable:
If you read the text you posted here, it says that hemoglobin is different enough between creatures that it doesn't follow single-ancestry expectations. In other words, for multiple different animal types, hemoglobin DID appear out of nowhere. That's exactly what your paragraph is saying. And the only effort the author makes to dispel such a conclusion is to arbitrarily throw in millions of years to make it seem like there's a valid reason for the differences he can't explain.
Evolutionary theory, even if Darwin's feeble attempt to retain some support from Christians is genuine, still gives glory to the creature over the creator, because it says God isn't needed to design wonderfully designed creatures. And it completely turns on its head the Genesis' contention that creatures reproduce after their kind. Grandeur it might seem to someone fixated on removing God from the picture, but it's a hopeless grandeur--all vanity.
And it has wasted much scientific thought and energy on a pursuit to show God isn't needed. Much more good science could have been done by acknowledging God's creative prowess and studying it to find out how it works.
NIce post, Derf.
LOL. So you continue to use fallacies. You lift a single sentence out a paragraph and then pretend it was all that was said. The meaning that I get out of that sentence, taken within it's context, is this: The geologic column, that geologists pretend is complete worldwide and reliably upholds the evolutionary theories, cannot be found as complete world wide. It fact, it is as the author says, it's missing in the vast majority of the earth's surface. That it is an accurate model of the entire earth's crust is an idea found only in geologist's diagrams. In real life it is missing components and, or actually inverted, in more than 99% of the earth's surface. but, since you can't controvert the author's statements of fact you want to nitpick the wording of one sentence and then claim he is lying and not to be believed. I've seen your attempts at obfuscation many times before. They just don't work
Your article on hemoglobin is highly misleading for it runs into the problem, immediately, of irreducible complexity. For hemoglobin to work reliably, or even at all, the information that produces the proteins has to come from dna, and that dna has to be perfectly formed for the organism to live, and to create the hemoglobin. Hemoglobin cannot exist without the dna information that tells the organism what proteins are needed and in what exact sequence. This was actually a very poor attempt at misdirection as it is very apparent that you can't deal with the odds involved in the production of, and functioning of, hemoglobin in the blood.
Evolution, as a whole, has that problem. DNA must exist complete before life forms can exist and reproduce themselves. And all forms of dna modification that happen by chance destroy dna information. There is no known addition of dna information is changes found in life forms. Let's take the instance that you evolutionists like to crow about and claim it supports evolution: that bacteria become immune to drugs. Oh, see they are modifying themselves and no longer can be killed by drugs. LOL. Yeah, they have been modified and no longer die from the drugs created to kill them, but was it from destruction of dna information or the addition of dna information? It is demonstrably from the destruction of dna information for the drugs are designed to attach to specific parts of the cellular structure and because the dna has been been partially destroyed the specific cellular structures for the drugs to attach to are no longer created. It's not an argument for evolution, but actually an argument against evolution. But evolutionists go ahead and make the claim anyway, knowing all the time it is a lie.
Your claim that evolution isn't about the beginnings of life is disingenous at it's very best, and a flat out lie otherwise.
Here's a link from evolution.berkley.edu on the origins of life. https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/origsoflife_03 The title of the short article is "where did life originate?" Evolutionists pondering on where life originated and doing that under the overall title of Understanding Evolution.
https://www.universetoday.com/104336/how-did-life-begin/ Evolutionists pondering how evolution produced life.
https://www.livescience.com/13363-7-theories-origin-life.html Once again, evolutionists pondering how evolution brought life into existence.
https://science.nasa.gov/solar-syst...rth-and-has-it-evolved-elsewhere-solar-system This is a link from NASA on the evolutionary beginnings of life.
One last thing before I forget it. I want you to show me the observation of one of the most foundational aspects of evolution: that of one species arising out of another one. Oh, I've seen theories addressing it, but zero fossil evidence has ever been found. Until you can provide that type of "observation" there is no real evidence for evolution. All "observation" of that type has been proven fraudulent. Another form of fraudulent "observation" is the geologic column which is missing, as a whole, in more than 99% of the earth's crust. And still a third piece of fraudulent "observation" is the circular reasoning that even scientists admit happens in their usage of the fossil record and evolutionary theory. These three legs are foundational to belief in evolution and all three legs are destroyed lack of legitimate scientic evidence.
Oh, and by the way, I am a YEC. I make no scientific arguments one way or the other for it. I take it by faith from the Bible. I take the Genesis account of creation as literal. So, I use no logical fallacies to support my beliefs for I plainly say it is an article of faith in the God I serve and trust with my life. I'm not like you who must point away from and try to obscure my faith in something which the odds say is so far from evolution being possible that it must be taken and believed in by faith. I don't have faith that can exist against the kind of odds that you evolutionists believe were overcome.
I merely addressed the falsehood. Although it would be impossible for the entire geologic column to exist everywhere, and it's remarkable that there are places where deposition exceeded erosion for every period in Earth's history, there are some places where that was the case.
That's the second dishonesty. No geologist ever said that. If you thought about it for a moment, you'd probably figure out why that couldn't possibly happen.
That it is an accurate model of the entire earth's crust is an idea found only in creationist mirepresentations.
You're wrong for two reasons. First, irreducibly complexity can evolve. Second, hemoglobin isn't irreducibly complex. Let's look at your beliefs for a bit...
No. If you synthesized hemoglobin, it would still work.
No. There are different kinds of hemoglobin, each of which works well enough for the organisms in which it exists. So it can't be irreducibly complex, since many different changes in hemoglobin do not destroy its function.
There would have to be organisms before hemoglobin. Turns out, that's what happened. Hemoglobin didn't evolve until long after life originated on Earth. No problem there, either.
And if you want to suppose that God just poofed the first living things into existence, that would be fine with evolutionary theory, which doesn't say how life got started. Darwin, for example, just supposed that God created the first living things.
Yes, it was, but I've debunked it for you.
If you were wondering, the odds are 1.0. Would you like me to show you?
See above. If you'd prefer the poofing scenario, instead of the earth bringing forth life, that's perfectly consistent with evolutionary theory.
You don't seem to know what "information" is. In fact, all new mutations increase information in a population. Would you like me to show you?
Let's take a really simple case and see what you can do with it. Suppose there's a gene in a population that only has two alleles, each of them with a frequency of 0.5. Then suppose a new mutation occurs, eventually, each allele has a frequency of 0.333... What was the information before and after the mutation? Hint: numbers will be required.
Depends on the mode of protection. Suppose a critical step in some process of the bacterium, was being prevented by the antibiotic. One way to gain immunity would be to change the process so that critical step was no longer needed. In that case, fitness would be achieved by a loss of information.
But what if instead, the bacterium had a mutation producing a new substance that inactivated the antibiotic? Then an addition to information would have occured. So, it depends.
See above. Evolution can involve an increase in information, or a decrease information. There are cases of both in antibiotic resistance.
It's not an argument agtainst evolution, but creationists go ahead and make the claim anyway, some of them knowing all the time it is a lie. Others merely repeat the lies, not knowing anything about it.
It's just a fact. If God had poofed the first living things into existence, instead of the earth bringing them forth, evolution would still work as it does.
If you doubt this, show me anything in Darwin's theory, or in the Modern Synthesis that says anything about the origin of life. All there is, is Darwin's suggestion that God just created the first living things.
Most creationists gave up on that a long time ago. "Answers in Genesis" now freely admits the fact of speciation. So does the Institute for Creation Research. Indeed, the ICR now endorses Woodmorappe's claim that new species, genera, and even families evolve. They just say "that's not real evolution."
Might be, you should read up on what creationists say, too. The first observed speciation was O. gigas from O. lamarckania by a polyploidy event.
But there's also:
Dobzhansky, T. (1935). Drosophila miranda, a new species. Genetics 20: 377--391.
Your fellow creationists disagree with you.
As creationists, we must frequently remind detractors that we do not deny that species vary, change, and even appear over time. The biodiversity represented in the 8.7 million or so species in the world is a testament, not to random chance processes, but to the genetic variability and potential for diversification within the created kinds.
https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/
Of course, if you were right, it wouldn't be found anywhere. If you think about it for a bit, I'm sure you'd realize why it would be so rare for anyplace on Earth to have continuously have more deposition than erosion over several billion years.
Your fellow YE creationist disagrees with you on that, too:
Of Darwinism’s four stratomorphic intermediate expectations, that of the commonness of inter-specific stratomorphic intermediates has been the most disappointing for classical Darwinists. The current lack of any certain inter-specific stratomorphic intermediates has, of course, led to the development and increased acceptance of punctuated equilibrium theory. Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms
Your three objections are foundational to belief in creationism and all three legs are destroyed because of a lack of scriptural or scientific support.
That's an honest position. As Kurt Wise says, there is very good evidence for common descent, but he prefers his interpretation of Genesis. Nothing dishonest about that.
The evidence says you're wrong, but you prefer to put your faith in your understanding of scripture. Can't disparage that.
Well, let's take a look...
"Alignment of amino acid sequences is informative for the phylogenetic relationships among the hemoglobins in bacteria, fungi, protists, plants and animals."
It says quite clearly that the amino acid sequences in hemoglobin indicates the evolutionary relationships of hemooglobins in bacteria, fungi, protists, plants, and animals. Seems pretty clear to me.
What it says is that the non-coding DNA strands (that don't function to produce proteins like hemoglobin)that serve as inducers of hypoxic activation don't appear to show phylogenies. Which is why they said at the beginning:
"The discovery of hemoglobins in virtually all kingdoms of organisms has shown (1) that the ancestral gene for hemoglobin is ancient, and (2) that hemoglobins can serve additional functions besides transport of oxygen between tissues, ranging from intracellular oxygen transport to catalysis of redox reactions. These different functions of the hemoglobins illustrate the acquisition of new roles by a pre-existing structural gene, which requires changes not only in the coding regions but also in the regulatory elements of the genes."
Nope. It says exactly the opposite:
Alignment of amino acid sequences is informative for the phylogenetic relationships among the hemoglobins in bacteria, fungi, protists, plants and animals.
Rather, it says that God does not need to "design" as limited creatures must do; He creates, being omnipotent and omniscient. To my thinking a God that powerful and wise is far more impressive than some little godling who must figure it out one at a time, designing a tree here and a wasp there.
It doesn't say that they reproduce after their kind. It says that the earth brought forth living things, and they were created according to their kind. But it doesn't say how this happened. The idea of a "designer", removes an all-powerful God from the picture and submits something that IDers admit "might be a space alien."
Grandeur it might seem to someone fixated on removing God from the picture, but it's a hopeless grandeur--all vanity.
Yes. For me, a little "designer" will never be an adequate replacement for the Creator.
Would have. But as you see, even Darwin attributed creation to God. No scientist I ever read did research trying to prove there is no God.
That's the rub, isn't it? Science, by its methodology, can't say anything about the supernatural.
But scientists can. Hence, Darwin's belief that God created the first living things.
Derf
Well-known member
It says quite clearly NOTHING OF THE KIND. All that sentence says is that the alignment is "informative". Are you now trying to tell me that "informative" means "indicative of evolutionary relationships"? No wonder we had such a hard time seeing eye-to-eye on the creation narrative in Genesis. You read way too much into sentences not meant to say so much. The author goes on to explain what he meant: "alignments of non-coding DNA sequences do not reveal significant matches even between mammalian alpha- and beta-globin gene clusters" (emphasis mine). He is stating, quite clearly, that there is not evident evolutionary relationship, even when he apparently tried to read it into the data.
Yes, that's what I said. They had to infer from the fact that hemoglobins exist in virtually all kingdoms that it somehow indicates the conclusion that they had inferred from the beginning. Welcome to inferential science. You, too, can be a scientist, just by starting with your conclusion and then magically reaching that conclusion
That's SOOOOOOO informative. Thank you, Barb!
Are you saying God creates WITHOUT designing? Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!
You mean like this: [Gen 1:11-12 KJV] 11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
But read back what you wrote there--that they were created according to their kind. They were created different kinds, they weren't created a single kind that then produced all the other kinds. The sea brought forth some of the kinds (fish and birds), and the earth brought forth others. If they all came from the same source, why does the bible give two sources? And how can the sea bring forth birds, when scientists are so confident that birds came from land animals?? Your narrative is falling apart. It has no consistency. It evolves to fit the discussion, just as the language has to evolve to get a different meaning from the words than was ever in the minds of the writers.
They knew they didn't need to, since they had already decided to conclude there is no God. (Saves a bunch of time and research money to jump right to the conclusion!)
Science doesn't talk. Scientists talk. They interpret what they see based on presuppositions, like we all do. Only some presuppositions are more equal than others.
Yep. And he reinforces that several times:
"The discovery of hemoglobins in virtually all kingdoms of organisms has shown (1) that the ancestral gene for hemoglobin is ancient"
"The evolution of different regulated functions within an ancient gene family allows an examination of the types of biosequence data that are informative for various types of issues."
"Non-coding sequence matches are not seen between avian and mammalian beta-globin gene clusters, which diverged approximately 250 million years ago"
"In contrast, alignments of non-coding sequences from species representing multiple eutherian mammalian orders, some of which diverged as long as 135 million years ago, are reliable predictors of novel cis-regulatory elements, both proximal and distal to the genes. "
Probably. Here, you've confused the very good data from the Hemoglobin genes showing common descent (as the author says) with the non-coding DNA that functions as inducers.
I could say that about YE creationists who have added all sorts of material to Genesis that is not there.
Yes. He's saying that while the genes for hemoglobin indicate common descent, the non-coding DNA that induces it, neither supports nor refutes it. For reasons he mentions.
No. He repeatedly points out that the genes for hemoglobin show evolutionary phylogenies. He's pointing out that non-coding DNA normally will not. As with Genesis, you're trying to read all sorts of things into it that are not there.
You have it backwards. The fact that genes for hemoglobin show the same phylogenies that we get from DNA generally, from the fossil record. from anatomy and other evidence, is another confirmation of those phylogenies.
Inference from evidence is all we have to understand the physical universe. Which might seem unsteady to you, but those inferences made it possible to make the computer you're using, out of dirt.
And notice that Darwin's theory has been spectacularly correct in predicting the fossil record, which is Wise's point. It is, as he says, very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory.
This is why science befuddles you. You've imagined it works that way, and of course, it's nothing like that.
(Barbarian shows that the report mentions that hemoglobin genes confirm common descent)
You're welcome.
Barbarian observes:
Rather, it says that God does not need to "design" as limited creatures must do; He creates, being omnipotent and omniscient. To my thinking a God that powerful and wise is far more impressive than some little godling who must figure it out one at a time, designing a tree here and a wasp there.
Yep. He's eternal, and never changes. He never had to figure anything out, being omniscient.
Not every person thinks He is all-powerful. Are you a Mormon, perhaps?
Yep. Not "reproduces according to their kind"; that's an insertion YE creations added to make the Bible more acceptable to them.
That's another YE revision. It does not say how they were created. You, for example were created by God, but He used natural means to make you body as well.
You're trying to read it as a literal history, when the text itself says it's not. Your narrative is falling apart. It has no consistency, since you must then believe in mornings and evenings without a sun to have them. And then to cover that flaw, you have to argue that "morning" and "evening" don't mean what they do in English. And so one. Each revision of His word forces you to modify more and more of it.
Keppler's presupposition was that planets travel in circles around the Sun. Only after trying to make that work and failing several times, did he accept the evidence showing that they don't. Darwin's presupposition was that species were fixed. Only after a long time did he accept the evidence showing that they are not fixed.
Works in theology, too. St. Augustine tried for years to make Genesis a literal history before he realized that the text itself shows that it is not. So the story that presuppositions rule our thinking is demonstrably false. They can. But in science, the breakthroughs are done by men who overcome their presuppositions, such as Kepler and Darwin.
Derf
Well-known member
All of these statements are tautological. He's saying "because hemoglobin is ancient, it has been around for a very long time, hence evolution." I really thought you were too smart to fall for that. I guess I was wrong.
Here he presents evidence that the hemoglobins in birds are NOT related to hemoglobins in mammals, thus they don't show evidence of evolution.
you seem to have a typo. I think you were trying to say "(as the author infers tautologically)".
...but that would be repeating yourself as well as projecting your own hermeneuting, as expressed later on in your post, so I can see why you decided not to.
Since when does one time mean "repeatedly"? I understand that you are willing to hang your last thread of hope on a statement that has absolutely no scientific basis, and repeat it a bunch of times yourself to help solidify the false statement in your mind as truth, but to then claim it was the author that "repeatedly" pointed this out is a bit overstated, don't you think?
Let's just repeat it one more time 'cause it makes you feel so much better that you haven't wasted your time on this.
Inference from evidence is NOT all we have. We also have testimony from eyewitness, passed down through time.
Well, spectacular might be a little strong, since we keep having to throw out missing links all the time.
Yes, that is why evolutionary science befuddles me. The other kind seems to work well.
(...because he realizes that the author says nothing of the kind.)
This is the part of your post I most wanted to focus on. The above stuff was mostly banter.
You here in this "observation" have completely altered the meaning of the transitive verb "design". You seem to think it means "achieve by trial and error" or something. Even if your view were correct, that God made a world that would bring forth plants and animals from the ground by itself, that would still have been a design, but it would have been a design that itself designs. The plants and animals are intricate systems within systems that must work together for the created thing to function. Systems that work together show design. This is a conclusion of even the most rabid evolutionists, which acknowledge the appearance of design, but attribute it to anything else they can think of besides to God. "Design" does not mean "to tinker", though the god of evolution does so. You have confused your gods.
If I were, would that somehow help your argument? I don't see how. Maybe it would make you feel batter about re-writing scripture to say something it doesn't say, since they do it, too.
It has consistency if you don't try to redefine the terms to mean something they don't mean. You have here defined "morning" and "evening" to be about the light source rather than the light. But the narrative is clear that it is talking about the light and not the source, until he made the governors of the light and assigned them their place.
Perhaps you don't know what "tautological" means.
No. He's saying:
"The discovery of hemoglobins in virtually all kingdoms of organisms has shown (1) that the ancestral gene for hemoglobin is ancient"
"The evolution of different regulated functions within an ancient gene family allows an examination of the types of biosequence data that are informative for various types of issues."
"Non-coding sequence matches are not seen between avian and mammalian beta-globin gene clusters, which diverged approximately 250 million years ago"
"In contrast, alignments of non-coding sequences from species representing multiple eutherian mammalian orders, some of which diverged as long as 135 million years ago, are reliable predictors of novel cis-regulatory elements, both proximal and distal to the genes. "
See above. That's not what he said at all, is it?
Nope. He shows that while the coding for hemoglobin is consistent and shows evolution of all major classes of animals, the non-coding sequences don't match up between birds and mammals. Which is what you expect. You see, mutations happen constantly in all organisms. But mutations to non-coding sequences don't do anything at all to the molecule, because they don't affect the synthesis of the protein. Mammals tend to show better consistency in non-coding sequences for hemoglobin, which again is precisely what you'd expect if all mammals were more closely related evolutionarily to each other than any of them were related to birds. Do you see why?
You perhaps didn't understand what the evidence he cites means, and assumed that since you couldn't understand it, it must be "tautuological" ...but that would be repeating yourself as well as projecting your own hermeneuting .
That's all there is for this. You see, God didn't say how it all came about, except that He did it naturally, from pre-existing creation.
"Down through time" meaning "since the 20th century", and the "eyewitnesses" who took it upon themselves to revise scripture, did it, without ever seeing any of it, or even the evidence left behind.
You've been badly misled about that. When I started studying biology, there were no known transitional forms between man and apes, reptiles and mammals, fish and tetrapods, frogs and other amphibians, whales and other ungulates...(long list). And now we have them for all of those groups.
This is why your fellow YE creationist, Kurt Wise, admits that the many, many transitional series in the fossil record are "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."
Even more impressive is that we never find a transitional form where there shouldn't be one. No insects with bones. No mammals with feathers. That reinforces the fact that these transitionals show the evolution of new taxa.
Far from it. It shows very clearly the fact of evolution. As you see, it also shows the opportunistic nature of evolution, rigging new functions from old features. That's something even Darwin noticed.
No. It means to figure something out.
design
[ dih-zahyn ]
|
SEE MORE SYNONYMS FOR design ON THESAURUS.COM
verb (used with object)
to prepare the preliminary sketch or the plans for (a work to be executed), especially to plan the form and structure of: to design a new bridge.
to plan and fashion artistically or skillfully.
verb (used without object)
to make drawings, preliminary sketches, or plans.
to plan and fashion the form and structure of an object, work of art, decorative scheme, etc.
dictionary.com
Design is what limited creatures do. God does not "design", having no need to figure anything out.
See above. Words mean things. Yes, I'm familiar with the informal use of "design" as a noun to mean something like function. Biologists even use it that way on occasion. But it's an insult to God to accuse him of needing to "design."
He says it works that way, so I'm pretty sure He's right.
No. Limited creatures like man design. The world is a creation, not a design.
You think God "designs" hurricanes and river valleys? These things develop from the nature of the world itself, with no planning whatever. If you want to learn how this happens, here's a very good and almost non-mathematical treatment showing how nature is intrinsically created to be self-organizing:
When lightning flashes in the sky, showing off its characteristic pattern of zigzagging veins, it’s not hard to see its resemblance to branching trees or waterway tributaries. It’s also easy to assume those similarities are purely visual because these patterns occur in such different realms of nature. Yet according to veteran mechanical engineer and Duke University professor Bejan, these recurring shapes and structures obey a fundamental principle of physics known as the constructal law. Put simply, this law asserts that all things that live or move, from ants and animal herds to rivers and electric currents, persist and evolve according to their ability to facilitate flow. In this lucidly written overview of the constructal law, Bejan, with journalist Zane, describes all the circumstances and ways this law operates in the world, including blood vessels and man-made cooling systems. The authors’ language is never too abstract for the lay reader to easily grasp, and the insights offered here present a revolutionary, unifying vision of nature that could impact all branches of science.
No one here suggested it did, unless you did.
As you learned, evolution tinkers. God merely created, without any planning whatever, a world in which this basic process leads to highly complex structures and processes. And as you now realize, God is able to use contingency as easily as He can use necessity to effect His will.
Let Him do it his way. The other creator "gods" in other religions are pictured making a moose here, and a lion there, one at a time, because they are not almighty. That's the creationist god. You have confused your gods.
Long before Darwin, Christians like St. Augustine pointed out that your argument would be to redefine the words "morning" and "evening." There's no way to dodge that.
Genome Biol Evol. 2018 Jan 1;10(1):344-358.
Gene Turnover and Diversification of the α- and β-Globin Gene Families in Sauropsid Vertebrates.
Hoffmann FG, Vandewege MW, Storz JF, Opazo JC.
Abstract
The genes that encode the α- and β-chain subunits of vertebrate hemoglobin have served as a model system for elucidating general principles of gene family evolution, but little is known about patterns of evolution in amniotes other than mammals and birds. Here, we report a comparative genomic analysis of the α- and β-globin gene clusters in sauropsids (archosaurs and nonavian reptiles). The objectives were to characterize changes in the size and membership composition of the α- and β-globin gene families within and among the major sauropsid lineages, to reconstruct the evolutionary history of the sauropsid α- and β-globin genes, to resolve orthologous relationships, and to reconstruct evolutionary changes in the developmental regulation of gene expression. Our comparisons revealed contrasting patterns of evolution in the unlinked α- and β-globin gene clusters. In the α-globin gene cluster, which has remained in the ancestral chromosomal location, evolutionary changes in gene content are attributable to the differential retention of paralogous gene copies that were present in the common ancestor of tetrapods. In the β-globin gene cluster, which was translocated to a new chromosomal location, evolutionary changes in gene content are attributable to differential gene gains (via lineage-specific duplication events) and gene losses (via lineage-specific deletions and inactivations). Consequently, all major groups of amniotes possess unique repertoires of embryonic and postnatally expressed β-type globin genes that diversified independently in each lineage. These independently derived β-type globins descend from a pair of tandemly linked paralogs in the most recent common ancestor of sauropsids.
Gene Turnover and Diversification of the α- and β-Globin Gene Families in Sauropsid Vertebrates.
Hoffmann FG, Vandewege MW, Storz JF, Opazo JC.
Abstract
The genes that encode the α- and β-chain subunits of vertebrate hemoglobin have served as a model system for elucidating general principles of gene family evolution, but little is known about patterns of evolution in amniotes other than mammals and birds. Here, we report a comparative genomic analysis of the α- and β-globin gene clusters in sauropsids (archosaurs and nonavian reptiles). The objectives were to characterize changes in the size and membership composition of the α- and β-globin gene families within and among the major sauropsid lineages, to reconstruct the evolutionary history of the sauropsid α- and β-globin genes, to resolve orthologous relationships, and to reconstruct evolutionary changes in the developmental regulation of gene expression. Our comparisons revealed contrasting patterns of evolution in the unlinked α- and β-globin gene clusters. In the α-globin gene cluster, which has remained in the ancestral chromosomal location, evolutionary changes in gene content are attributable to the differential retention of paralogous gene copies that were present in the common ancestor of tetrapods. In the β-globin gene cluster, which was translocated to a new chromosomal location, evolutionary changes in gene content are attributable to differential gene gains (via lineage-specific duplication events) and gene losses (via lineage-specific deletions and inactivations). Consequently, all major groups of amniotes possess unique repertoires of embryonic and postnatally expressed β-type globin genes that diversified independently in each lineage. These independently derived β-type globins descend from a pair of tandemly linked paralogs in the most recent common ancestor of sauropsids.
Derf
Well-known member
You do realize that the author completely obliterated any hope for a reasoned conclusion when he appealed to the "evolution of the gaps" fallacy? Pick your god, Barb, and be faithful.
Derf
Well-known member
You do realize that the author completely obliterated any hope for a reasoned conclusion when he appealed to the "evolution of the gaps" fallacy? Pick your god, Barb, and be faithful.