Surprises in sea anemone genome

[PlastikBuddha]

There you go again !

"Where in ToE does it say that organisms well-adapted to their enviroments would change?"

Because if they were well adapted they wouldn't change.

And how do we determine scientifically if they were well adapted?

Because if they weren't they would change, whereas if they were they wouldn't change.

But how do we actually tell?

We look and see, and that tells us which is which.

Wow, aren't "scientific" explanations wonderful?

Yeah- it's called extrapolation from the evidence. Believe it or not, but it's an important part of the scientific process.

 

[bob b]

Yeah- it's called extrapolation from the evidence. Believe it or not, but it's an important part of the scientific process.

death2impiety seems to have been right.

"Must have gone to public school..."

 

[PlastikBuddha]

death2impiety seems to have been right.

"Must have gone to public school..."

Weak, weak, weak. You got nothing better than ad hom left in your bag of tricks, old man?

 

[macguy]

Bob, you should create threads in attempt to adress arguments such as god of the gaps if we are going to go anywhere with this discussion. If they can't accept creation as a possible scientific endeavor then I don't think trying to critique evolution would do much good. From the responses on this thread, it would seem that Darwinism isn't near it's dowfall anytime soon. In my opinion, it is more logical to establish creation as a scientific theory than to spend a lot of time critiquing evolution. The theory, is after all in my view a good theory and spending time in establishing our theory as a possibility would be good enough. Of course establishing it as a theory doesn't make it true in any sense so from onward we would then present evidence for creation and attack evolution.'

From most arguments here, however, it would appear that most creationists don't focus much on the pawn and therefore it rarely moves. Once we can make a logical move with the pawn, we would be justified in proceeding in attacking and providing defenses with stronger pieces. The pawn may be weak, but it is nevertheless quite useful when put to the proper use. Probably not a good analogy but that's not my forte. Anyways, I just think we should not focus on statements such as "Give glory to God" and while it is true credit should be given, theistic evolutionists view evolution as a glorious mechanism for creation. It would be more prudent to focus on the first step because while you may accept creation as science, many people obviously don't.


I am not sure if I would even see it collapse in my lifetime. I don't really worry about science especially when it comes to past events although it is interesting nonetheless which is why I am studying it. For the evolutionist, there will be no collapse since it is true...Oh well I guess time will tell.

 

[bob b]

Bob, you should create threads in attempt to adress arguments such as god of the gaps if we are going to go anywhere with this discussion. If they can't accept creation as a possible scientific endeavor then I don't think trying to critique evolution would do much good. From the responses on this thread, it would seem that Darwinism isn't near it's dowfall anytime soon. In my opinion, it is more logical to establish creation as a scientific theory than to spend a lot of time critiquing evolution. The theory, is after all in my view a good theory and spending time in establishing our theory as a possibility would be good enough. Of course establishing it as a theory doesn't make it true in any sense so from onward we would then present evidence for creation and attack evolution.'

From most arguments here, however, it would appear that most creationists don't focus much on the pawn and therefore it rarely moves. Once we can make a logical move with the pawn, we would be justified in proceeding in attacking and providing defenses with stronger pieces. The pawn may be weak, but it is nevertheless quite useful when put to the proper use. Probably not a good analogy but that's not my forte. Anyways, I just think we should not focus on statements such as "Give glory to God" and while it is true credit should be given, theistic evolutionists view evolution as a glorious mechanism for creation. It would be more prudent to focus on the first step because while you may accept creation as science, many people obviously don't.

I am not sure if I would even see it collapse in my lifetime. I don't really worry about science especially when it comes to past events although it is interesting nonetheless which is why I am studying it. For the evolutionist, there will be no collapse since it is true...Oh well I guess time will tell.

If a person will not accept any theory that has a non-naturalistic starting point then there is not much to talk about.

As I have said many times before, such people are not my target audience.

My target audience is people who are toying with evolution as an answer to how all life evolved, but are reluctant to abandon their faith in God.

My mission is to show them that evolution from a hypothetical primitive protocell has no support within science. Hopefully this will limit the degree to which they are willing to compromise scripture, which simply states that all life began with fairly advanced multiple types, and is silent about how and when it diversified from that point on until today.

In other words it is not necessary to twist scripture to match current thought, scientific or otherwise. The scriptural story, though simple, is a far more logical starting point for life. And it solves the long standing mysteries of the origin of the DNA/RNA/protein interlocked system, the origin of sexual reproduction, homology, the Hox domain commonality of ancient forms of life and on and on and on.

In other words, all that "neat stuff" was designed into the most ancient forms of life that we are aware of by God, the Master Designer.

Those that believe in God should give Him the glory that He so richly deserves.

 

[Johnny]

My target audience is people who are toying with evolution as an answer to how all life evolved, but are reluctant to abandon their faith in God.

I like how you not-so-subtly imply that "toying with evolution" means abandoning your faith in God.

Not the case, my friend. Not the case at all. I think you do a great disservice to the cause when you set such a false dichotomy up. Who knows how many Christians have given up on their faith because they've been taught it's either evolution or their faith. I suppose they have people like you to thank for their choice.

 

[The Barbarian]

We eat, drink and breath out of the same hole. A percentage of us choke because of this. Glory to the worst designer of all time!

I would give the "credit" for this to being drunk or high on drugs or gorging oneself instead of eating normally using small bites.

Hundreds or thousands of people die every year because of this flaw. Many of them children, who are not blameworthy at all. And why is it that God thinks it's OK for other mammals to bolt their food, but not humans?

It's pretty simple. The repositioning of the larynx was necessary because of the reorientation of the head due to an upright posture. It also made sophisticated speech possible. But because it's an adaptation, not a design, it has some consequences. One of them is that we can easily choke.

I've noticed that people who argue "bad design" rarely tell us what DNA changes they would make to fix the so-called "problem" in the developing embryo.

You can't. It's woven into the fabric of human evolution. If God was designing from scratch, He could easily have created humans without this defect. But He used evolution to make us.

 

[Jukia]

You can't. It's woven into the fabric of human evolution. If God was designing from scratch, He could easily have created humans without this defect. But He used evolution to make us.

Ah, you still do not get the Pastor Enyart/bob b school of theology do you.

Best I can tell it posits that about 6,000 years ago, the entire universe was created by an omnipotent, eternal God. All in one week. His greatest creation was man. And here on earth all was just hunky dory. There was no death, all animals got along fine, nobody ate anybody else, etc. BUT THEN, the devil, in the guise of a talking snake, tricked Eve, who tricked Adam, into disobeying a particular order from God. That really really irritated God and He changed the rules. Animals started eating each other. Eve ran right out to Walmart to buy some clothes. Death entered the world, etc.

But, more importantly for bob b's view of science---mutations started to occur. The perfect world created by God started to break down. Prior to that fruit eating incident there were no mutations, not even the chance of any.

With respect to the particular issue you reference, the location of the esophagus and the wind pipe which causes, on occasion, the necessity for the Heimlich Maneuver to save someone, either prior to The Fall God miraculously kept Adam and Eve from choking, or there was an immediate redesign as part of God's anger (a redesign which included some genomic contribution since the location of those anatomic structures is hardwired) or a mutation in the gametes of Adam or Eve or one or several of their children.

In addition, it strikes me that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics must also be a function of God's wrath, else how would there not have been death prior to the Fall?

Talk about "just so stories".

 

[bob b]

I like how you not-so-subtly imply that "toying with evolution" means abandoning your faith in God.

Not the case, my friend. Not the case at all. I think you do a great disservice to the cause when you set such a false dichotomy up. Who knows how many Christians have given up on their faith because they've been taught it's either evolution or their faith. I suppose they have people like you to thank for their choice.

You think that you are OK because you still believe that Jesus was God.

Eventually the lure of evolution coupled with peer pressure from those you work with in the field will weaken your faith and you will fall away, just as the vast majority of leading evolutionists have done.

Belief in descent from a single hypothetical primitive protocell weakens Christian faith.

That is the reality.

 

[Johnny]

Eventually the lure of evolution coupled with peer pressure from those you work with in the field will weaken your faith and you will fall away, just as the vast majority of leading evolutionists have done.

Weak. You have no evidence that it is evolution doing the "weakening", whereas I have evidence that being a scientist in any field predisposes one to losing "faith".

If it were only evolutionists who were falling away, that would be one thing, but across the sciences a higher proportion of the population would describe themselves as atheists or weak theists than the general non-scientific population.

According to a study published in Nature, only 7% of scientists believed in a personal God, whereas 72.2% expressed disbelief in a personal God. 20% described themselves as agnostic.

Belief in descent from a single hypothetical primitive protocell weakens Christian faith.

That is the reality.

So would you say that you can't change your mind because that would threaten your faith?

 

[bob b]

Weak. You have no evidence that it is evolution doing the "weakening", whereas I have evidence that being a scientist in any field predisposes one to losing "faith".

If it were only evolutionists who were falling away, that would be one thing, but across the sciences a higher proportion of the population would describe themselves as atheists or weak theists than the general non-scientific population.

According to a study published in Nature, only 7% of scientists believed in a personal God, whereas 72.2% expressed disbelief in a personal God. 20% described themselves as agnostic.

So would you say that you can't change your mind because that would threaten your faith?

I see no reason to change my mind because everything that has been discovered in the past 24 years in biology only reinforces my conclusion that descent from a single hypothetical primitive protocell is an erroneous concept.

Descent from multiple fairly advanced creatures at the beginning is looking better and better with each new "surprise" in biological research.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

15% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. Glory to the #1 abortionist of all time!

Do you think God micro-manages everything that ever happens?

We eat, drink and breath out of the same hole. A percentage of us choke because of this.

Natural selection needs something to work with. If you can't eat without choking, maybe you don't deserve to reproduce.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Do you think God micro-manages everything that ever happens?

Do you think an omnipotent couldn't have designed things to function without such a high loss of "innocent children"?

Natural selection needs something to work with. If you can't eat without choking, maybe you don't deserve to reproduce.

Do you advocate killing the handicapped, also? After all, if you can't live without assistance maybe you don't deserve to live, eh?

 

[bob b]

Do you think an omnipotent couldn't have designed things to function without such a high loss of "innocent children"?

Bodies used to function better before the inevitable accumulation of random mutations began to take its toll. The 10% decline of the Earth's magnetic field in the past 150 years is a sign that cosmic ray damage is probably responsible for the growing number of deleterious mutations that cause most diseases (perhaps the decline in human lifespan since the Flood as well). Note that the Earth's magnetic field provides protection against cosmic rays, which is why human travel and living on Mars will probably never take place.

Do you advocate killing the handicapped, also? After all, if you can't live without assistance maybe you don't deserve to live, eh?

God said "Do not murder" but both the abortion movement and the growing eugenics movement are not listening.

The library booksale was today and I managed to pick up a number of gems, such as one describing what is going on in the revitalized eugenics movement.

Those who advocate compulsory sterilization by the government are alive and well !!

 

[The Barbarian]

Ah, you still do not get the Pastor Enyart/bob b school of theology do you.

Afraid not. I'm a Christian.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Bodies used to function better before the inevitable accumulation of random mutations began to take its toll. The 10% decline of the Earth's magnetic field in the past 150 years is a sign that cosmic ray damage is probably responsible for the growing number of deleterious mutations that cause most diseases (perhaps the decline in human lifespan since the Flood as well). Note that the Earth's magnetic field provides protection against cosmic rays, which is why human travel and living on Mars will probably never take place.

Do you have anything to back this up?

God said "Do not murder" but both the abortion movement and the growing eugenics movement are not listening.

Neither are most "Christians". Point?

The library booksale was today and I managed to pick up a number of gems, such as one describing what is going on in the revitalized eugenics movement.

Those who advocate compulsory sterilization by the government are alive and well !!

Again, point? There will always be crazies. ToE does not provide any justification for eugenics.

 

[bob b]

Do you have anything to back this up?

I thought everyone knew that the Earth's magnetic field had declined by 10% in the last 150 years.

Neither are most "Christians". Point?

Christians who kill the innocent are committing murder. Do you disagree?

Again, point? There will always be crazies. ToE does not provide any justification for eugenics.

Of course it does. "Survival of the Fittest".

 

[PlastikBuddha]

I thought everyone knew that the Earth's magnetic field had declined by 10% in the last 150 years.

I'm taling about the whole spiel.

Christians who kill the innocent are committing murder. Do you disagree?

Nope.

Of course it does. "Survival of the Fittest".

How does that support eugenics?

 

[bob b]

I'm taling about the whole spiel.
Nope.
How does that support eugenics?

Eugenics advocates sterilizing the unfit to take the place of Natural Selection which works poorly where humans are concerned.

In a related development doctors in some European countries serve on committees to determine who is well enough to be nursed back to health and who are so sick they should be euthanized.

There is no doubt that the US will follow in their footsteps within the next decade.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Eugenics advocates sterilizing the unfit to take the place of Natural Selection which works poorly where humans are concerned.

Yeah, I know what they say, but the ToE does not apply to human beings. We are far removed from the days when natural selection was at work in our population.

In a related development doctors in some European countries serve on committees to determine who is well enough to be nursed back to health and who are so sick they should be euthanized.

It's called triage. It has nothing to do with eugenics.

There is no doubt that the US will follow in their footsteps within the next decade.

Only if we continue down the abominable road of captialistic health care, where money will decide who lives and who dies, and the ultimate arbitrater is the almighty bottom line.