The Privileged Planet

[Right Divider]

I'm going by what you've told me, i.e., that you believe in a god that intentionally designed pathogens to cause horrible diseases.

And you believe that God does not have control of His creation and just lets "accidents" happen.

Uh, no...that's just reality. The evolutionary interpretation is winning the day, and has been for over 150 years. Creationism OTOH hasn't contributed a single thing to science over the same time.

I know you don't like that, but that just means your problem is with reality.

Only in your evolutionary mind.

And you base this accusation against scientists on what?

You mean evolutionist scientists.

Uh, no...the debate between Darwinian gradualism and cladogenesis is over different ways in which evolution occurs. Even the nuttiest creationists don't really dispute that basic fact. I mean....what else do you think that debate is about? :idunno:

You equivocate on the term 'evolution'. Variation within a kind is NOT the same thing as ALL kinds being descended from single ancestor. The first one (variation) is demonstrable, the second is fantasy.

That's how science works. Eldredge and Gould noticed that population geneticists had figured out that most speciation was via cladogenesis, yet paleontologists were still interpreting fossil trends under the framework of Darwinian gradualism. So they wrote a paper intended for their fellow paleontologists, urging them to start utilizing cladogenesis more. That's it.

Sure it is. Evolution first, then we just HAVE to find a way that it works.

That's not science.

Of course evolutionary theory can be falsified. Just because it hasn't, doesn't mean it can't.

How could it be falsified?

That is its ACTUAL definition?

 

[Jose Fly]

And you believe that God does not have control of His creation and just lets "accidents" happen.

Like I said, I'm content to allow your belief in a God that deliberately designed pathogens to cause horrible diseases to speak for itself.

Only in your evolutionary mind.

If I'm wrong, you should have no trouble showing my claims to be false. So far, all you've done is the equivalent of "Nuh uh".

You mean evolutionist scientists.

You dodged the question. You've accused scientists of dishonestly manipulating data to fit a failed framework (evolution). Where's your evidence?

You equivocate on the term 'evolution'. Variation within a kind is NOT the same thing as ALL kinds being descended from single ancestor. The first one (variation) is demonstrable, the second is fantasy.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the debate between Darwinian gradualism and punctuated equilibrium is over how evolution occurs.

Sure it is. Evolution first, then we just HAVE to find a way that it works.

That's not science.

Then by the same token, neither is physics. We still have no idea what causes gravity, yet it's a central force in physics. With evolution OTOH, we know quite a bit about what causes it and how it works (because we see it happen, all the time).

How could it be falsified?

For example, if we found no discernible patterns in the genomes of taxa, e.g., horses with vestigial sequences for bird feathers and insect antennae, or humans with vestigial sequences for chloroplasts.

A big one would be if we saw another mechanism by which new traits arose. As it stands, the only we've ever seen new traits arise is by evolution.

 

[Right Divider]

Like I said, I'm content to allow your belief in a God that deliberately designed pathogens to cause horrible diseases to speak for itself.

And you believe that God does not have control of His creation and just lets "accidents" happen.

Are you a robot?

If I'm wrong, you should have no trouble showing my claims to be false. So far, all you've done is the equivalent of "Nuh uh".

There is absolutely NO evidence whatsoever that one kind of animal can turn into another kind of animal. That is an evolutionary fantasy.

What we ACTUALLY see is that different kinds of animals have great deals of variation with that kind, which is also true of plants. (I know that you next "canned response" will be about what a 'kind' is, so start another thread about that).

You dodged the question. You've accused scientists of dishonestly manipulating data to fit a failed framework (evolution). Where's your evidence?

Indeed they do.

What else can an atheist be, but an evolutionist? You have noticed that the vast majority of evolutionists are atheists, haven't you?

That has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the debate between Darwinian gradualism and punctuated equilibrium is over how evolution occurs.

Indeed, you willing admit that "evolution" is never in doubt (even though you won't define EXACTLY what it means). That's an a priori belief system that just needs (has) to be proven somehow or other.

Then by the same token, neither is physics. We still have no idea what causes gravity, yet it's a central force in physics. With evolution OTOH, we know quite a bit about what causes it and how it works (because we see it happen, all the time).

Gravity can be tested repeatedly and measured. That is NOT true with YOUR theory about "all life having a common ancestor".

And ONCE AGAIN, you equate variations with goo to you "evolution".

For example, if we found no discernible patterns in the genomes of taxa, e.g., horses with vestigial sequences for bird feathers and insect antennae, or humans with vestigial sequences for chloroplasts.

A big one would be if we saw another mechanism by which new traits arose. As it stands, the only we've ever seen new traits arise is by evolution.

ONCE AGAIN, all bluff and bluster.

 

[Jose Fly]

And you believe that God does not have control of His creation and just lets "accidents" happen.

No I don't.

There is absolutely NO evidence whatsoever that one kind of animal can turn into another kind of animal. That is an evolutionary fantasy.

What we ACTUALLY see is that different kinds of animals have great deals of variation with that kind, which is also true of plants. (I know that you next "canned response" will be about what a 'kind' is, so start another thread about that).

How do you define "kind"?

Indeed they do.

And your evidence for this is......?

What else can an atheist be, but an evolutionist? You have noticed that the vast majority of evolutionists are atheists, haven't you?

No, that's not true at all. In the developed world, about 2% of the population are atheists. Yet in the developed world the majority of the population accept the reality of evolution. I'm not sure how good you are at math, but I hope you appreciate how it's impossible for 2% of a population to make up a majority.

Indeed, you willing admit that "evolution" is never in doubt

That evolution happens isn't in doubt, because we see it happen.

(even though you won't define EXACTLY what it means)

Evolution is a change in allele frequencies in populations over time.

Gravity can be tested repeatedly and measured. That is NOT true with YOUR theory about "all life having a common ancestor".

Sure it can...every genome that's sequenced has the potential to overturn common ancestry...every fossil find can do the same. Just because it hasn't, doesn't mean it can't.

ONCE AGAIN, all bluff and bluster.

LOL! So you ask for potential falsifications, and when I post a couple you just wave them away like that? Man, but creationists are entertaining. :chuckle:

 

[Jonahdog]

Gravity can be tested repeatedly and measured. That is NOT true with YOUR theory about "all life having a common ancestor".

Ah, but we have pretty good evidence of the mechanism by which all life evolved from a common ancestor. What is the mechanism by which gravity works?

 

[Interplanner]

Ah, but we have pretty good evidence of the mechanism by which all life evolved from a common ancestor. What is the mechanism by which gravity works?

Do we have that mechanism about common ancestor? I heard Paul Nelson, Discovery Institute, speak this week on how C. elagantis, a fruit fly, shows that it cannot. Mutations which were thought to provide 'survival' adaptions are rejected by the organism and die out.

 

[Jose Fly]

Do we have that mechanism about common ancestor?

Yes, there are several mechanisms that drive evolution.

I heard Paul Nelson, Discovery Institute, speak this week

You heard some philosopher speak at an obscure creationist meeting. So?

on how C. elagantis, a fruit fly,

People keep telling you that's not a fruit fly. Pay attention.

shows that it cannot. Mutations which were thought to provide 'survival' adaptions are rejected by the organism and die out.

?????????? We see new beneficial traits arise via mutation and become fixed in populations all the time.

 

[Right Divider]

No I don't.

Then what in the world do you believe?

Is God in control of His creation or not?

How do you define "kind"?

I don't know EXACTLY what a 'kind' is any more than you know EXACTLY what a 'species" is.

That does NOT mean that there are NOT kinds.

God knows what kinds He created, we can only guess. But if you look around I'll bet that you can figure many of them out.

No, that's not true at all. In the developed world, about 2% of the population are atheists. Yet in the developed world the majority of the population accept the reality of evolution. I'm not sure how good you are at math, but I hope you appreciate how it's impossible for 2% of a population to make up a majority.

I was actually referring to the vocal majority.

That evolution happens isn't in doubt, because we see it happen.

ONCE AGAIN, if we are referring to 'evolution' as simply VARIATION, nobody disagrees. It is the GOO TO YOU type that is NOT observed.

Evolution is a change in allele frequencies in populations over time.

Yes, variation WITHIN the existing gene pool. (You do know that ALL change happens over time, right?)

We agree that there is VARIATION WITHIN THE EXISTING existing genetic information. How about your vast evidence that this can cause NEW genetic information to ENTER the gene pool?

Sure it can...every genome that's sequenced has the potential to overturn common ancestry...every fossil find can do the same. Just because it hasn't, doesn't mean it can't.

You interpret this information to fit your theory and AMAZINGLY it fits your theory. Well done!

LOL! So you ask for potential falsifications, and when I post a couple you just wave them away like that? Man, but creationists are entertaining. :chuckle:

VARIATION WITHIN the EXISTING gene pool is NOT goo to you "evolution". Come up with a better story.

 

[Jose Fly]

Then what in the world do you believe?

Is God in control of His creation or not?

I don't believe in gods that oversee and micromanage everything that goes on in the universe.

I don't know EXACTLY what a 'kind' is

If you can't say in any way, shape, or form what a "kind" is, then it is necessarily a meaningless term, and as such, all your claims and arguments using that term are equally meaningless.

any more than you know EXACTLY what a 'species" is.

If we have two extant populations that reproduce sexually, but are physically unable to interbreed, they are separate species.

I was actually referring to the vocal majority.

Oh my....that has to be one of the funniest responses to being wrong I've ever seen. :rotfl:

ONCE AGAIN, if we are referring to 'evolution' as simply VARIATION, nobody disagrees. It is the GOO TO YOU type that is NOT observed.

No one actually observed the events that left craters on the moon either, but we're very sure what caused them.

Yes, variation WITHIN the existing gene pool.

As opposed to variations within the non-existing gene pool? :think:

How about your vast evidence that this can cause NEW genetic information to ENTER the gene pool?

What is "genetic information" and how are you measuring it?

You interpret this information to fit your theory and AMAZINGLY it fits your theory. Well done!

Isn't that the case with every scientific theory?

VARIATION WITHIN the EXISTING gene pool is NOT goo to you "evolution". Come up with a better story.

???????? You're not even making sense. You asked what would potentially falsify evolutionary common ancestry. I gave a couple of examples. Ever since, you've been scrambling around trying to find some way to not have to face the fact that your question was answered.

This is what's so fascinating about creationists. You keep asking for things that you're sure don't exist, but when they're shown to you, you guys really have no idea what to do. All you know is there's no way you'll ever admit being wrong on even the most trivial of points (because this is about your religious faith), so you end up waving your arms and stamping your little feet...K:


...while the rest of us watch and laugh. :chuckle:

 

[6days]

They developed a model based on evolutionary common ancestry, applied it to genetic sequences, and demonstrated how it accurately identified genetic function to a 96% degree of accuracy. There was nothing "theological" about it at all.

*
They developed a model based on homology and applied it to genetic sequences to predict molecular function for members of a protein family.


The theology was attributing this to common ancestry. *

The similar sequences that have similar functions is better explained by our common Designer rather than common ancestry.

Geneticist, Jeffery Tompkins says
(The relationship of common *cellular process {function} and various components {genetic sequences} ]b]"could it be an example of the Creator’s wise and efficient use and re-use of genetic code in different creatures to accomplish a common and basic cellular function?[/b]

"Consider the computer world. Ask seasoned computer programmers how often they completely re-write long, complicated blocks of code when they already have what they need somewhere on file. When a long piece of previously-written code is needed and available, programmers will tailor it to fit in its new context, but they will usually not completely re-write it.

" Of course, God is the ultimate programmer, and the genetic code He developed will produce the best possible protein needed for the system in which it works. If another organism has a similar physiology, one can expect many of the same genes to be present in its genome

 

[Jose Fly]

They developed a model based on homology and applied it to genetic sequences to predict molecular function for members of a protein family.

And those homologies (as in what's expected and what's not expected) were entirely, 100%, based on evolutionary common ancestry, and the known evolutionary history of protein families. IOW, the entire thing is based on evolutionary relationships, which is why it's in the name of the model.

The theology was attributing this to common ancestry.

Oh, I see. You declare evolutionary common ancestry to be a religion, then when you're presented with evolutionary common ancestry producing actual, useful results in science, you now can just wave it away as "theology". Why? Because you say it is! And we all know that things are so just because 6days says they are.

Man, but creationists are entertaining. :chuckle:

The similar sequences that have similar functions is better explained by our common Designer rather than common ancestry.

Because you say so, right? No need to actually demonstrate that with any actual research or results....6days at Theology online says it's so, so it is so. Hilarious.

Also, you earlier claimed that the "intelligent designer" model "is a [sic] even better fit for the evidence", and I asked you where this superior model is. Did you ignore that? Where is this superior model?

Geneticist, Jeffery Tompkins says

Some creationist at ICR says "It could be just because God made it that way". So what? Where's his actual work to back up his assertions?

 

[Right Divider]

I don't believe in gods that oversee and micromanage everything that goes on in the universe.

So you think that God just lets everything happen by accident, got it.

If you can't say in any way, shape, or form what a "kind" is, then it is necessarily a meaningless term, and as such, all your claims and arguments using that term are equally meaningless.

There are kinds, like: dogs, cats, horses. etc. Even a child can see that. All of these kinds reproduce after their kind, just like the Bible says.

If we have two extant populations that reproduce sexually, but are physically unable to interbreed, they are separate species.

So, according to you, lions and tigers are NOT separate species?

From the great wikipedia:

The liger is a hybrid cross between a male lion (Panthera leo) and a female tiger (Panthera tigris).[1] Thus, the liger has parents of the same genus but of different species. The liger is distinct from the similar hybrid tigon. While the Siberian tiger is the largest pure sub-species, ligers are believed to be the largest of all known extant felines.[2][3][4]

And what about group of animals that LOSE the ability to interbreed with their kind? Does this LOSS of ability to interbreed "create" a NEW specie?

Oh my....that has to be one of the funniest responses to being wrong I've ever seen. :rotfl:

Pride is so cute on you.

No one actually observed the events that left craters on the moon either, but we're very sure what caused them.

Hardly counts as the same thing, but thanks for playing. You've very good at playing games.

As opposed to variations within the non-existing gene pool? :think:

I guess that you're trying to make a joke or something?

Point, AGAIN, is that everything you're shown is simply shuffling of EXISTING genetic information (regardless of YOUR attempts to distract from this simple problem).

What is "genetic information" and how are you measuring it?

Classic attempt to misdirect.

• There was once NO genetic information (according to YOUR theory).
• Now there is TONS of it (according to any evolutionist scientist).
• How did we get from NONE to TONS?

It doesn't matter one tiny bit whether I know about qualification or quantification of it. You are the one with a problem to explain it and shuffling and rearrangement does NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION.

Isn't that the case with every scientific theory?

Perhaps, but evolutionists have always claimed that they would change their theory if the data demanded it. And yet everything falsifying data shows up, it's no problem at all. Just a little 'tweak' and the theory is fine. That's not much of a theory.

???????? You're not even making sense. You asked what would potentially falsify evolutionary common ancestry. I gave a couple of examples. Ever since, you've been scrambling around trying to find some way to not have to face the fact that your question was answered.

Hardly, every time to supply and "answer" to where the "theory" is proven, you always point to VARIATION WITHIN the EXISTING pool as proof that everything came into being by accidental rearranging to the EXISTING pool.

This is what's so fascinating about creationists. You keep asking for things that you're sure don't exist, but when they're shown to you, you guys really have no idea what to do. All you know is there's no way you'll ever admit being wrong on even the most trivial of points (because this is about your religious faith), so you end up waving your arms and stamping your little feet...K:


...while the rest of us watch and laugh. :chuckle:

Laugh all you want. You've shown that your theory is nothing but a fantasy to make you feel free from God.

 

[Jose Fly]

So you think that God just lets everything happen by accident, got it.

No, I already told you I don't believe that. I don't really believe anything about gods. I'm an apatheist.

There are kinds, like: dogs, cats, horses. etc.

How did you determine that dogs and cats are different "kinds"?

So, according to you, lions and tigers are NOT separate species?

You must have stopped reading too early. From the same Wiki page...

"Most ligers suffer from embryonic fatality or premature death,[7] and those that survive are often genetically or physically sterile and therefore unable to reproduce and continue their lineage."​

And what about group of animals that LOSE the ability to interbreed with their kind? Does this LOSS of ability to interbreed "create" a NEW specie?

Yes, when reproductive isolation is achieved, a new species is formed.

Hardly counts as the same thing, but thanks for playing.

Then what was your point when you said "goo to you evolution isn't observed"?

Point, AGAIN, is that everything you're shown is simply shuffling of EXISTING genetic information (regardless of YOUR attempts to distract from this simple problem).

How can you say that when you have no idea what "genetic information" is? :idunno:

Classic attempt to misdirect.

• There was once NO genetic information (according to YOUR theory).
• Now there is TONS of it (according to any evolutionist scientist).
• How did we get from NONE to TONS?

It doesn't matter one tiny bit whether I know about qualification or quantification of it. You are the one with a problem to explain it and shuffling and rearrangement does NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION.

So let me see if I have this right....you make all sorts of claims about "genetic information"...quantitative claims about more of it, less of it, increases of it, and decreases of it. But if anyone asks you what "genetic information" is or how to measure it, that's an "attempt to misdirect"?

And you don't see the problem there at all? No idea?

Perhaps, but evolutionists have always claimed that they would change their theory if the data demanded it. And yet everything falsifying data shows up, it's no problem at all. Just a little 'tweak' and the theory is fine. That's not much of a theory.

What falsifying data are you talking about? Be specific.

Hardly, every time to supply and "answer" to where the "theory" is proven, you always point to VARIATION WITHIN the EXISTING pool as proof that everything came into being by accidental rearranging to the EXISTING pool.

You're not even making sense. You didn't ask about "where the theory is proven", you asked about potential falsifications, and I gave some. All you've done since is stamp your little feet and wave your arms in a hilarious tantrum, apparently trying to distract from the fact that your question was answered.

Laugh all you want. You've shown that your theory is nothing but a fantasy to make you feel free from God.

Except for that inconvenient fact that the majority of people who accept the reality of evolution are theists. Other than that.....:chuckle:

 

[Right Divider]

No, I already told you I don't believe that. I don't really believe anything about gods. I'm an apatheist.

:chuckle: an atheist who doesn't care. Quite the cop-out for an atheist. You should probably switch to being an agnostic. That would be more respectable.

This clearly explains your NEED for evolution (the goo to you kind) to be true. You have no other choice.

How did you determine that dogs and cats are different "kinds"?

I opened my eyes. Am I wrong?

You must have stopped reading too early. From the same Wiki page...

"Most ligers suffer from embryonic fatality or premature death,[7] and those that survive are often genetically or physically sterile and therefore unable to reproduce and continue their lineage."​

Yes, when reproductive isolation is achieved, a new species is formed.

So when an animal LOSES what it ONCE had, this is NEW?

That is just plain dumb.

Then what was your point when you said "goo to you evolution isn't observed"?

You really are slow. Shuffling of existing genetic information and LOSS of it is NOT creating something NEW.

How can you say that when you have no idea what "genetic information" is? :idunno:

You're not going to give up on this distraction, eh?

How about this definition:

Genetic information:

"The genetic potential of an organism carried in the base sequence of its DNA (or, in some viruses, RNA) according to the genetic code."
​

Genetic code:

"the nucleotide triplets of DNA and RNA molecules that carry genetic information in living cells."
​

So let me see if I have this right....you make all sorts of claims about "genetic information"...quantitative claims about more of it, less of it, increases of it, and decreases of it. But if anyone asks you what "genetic information" is or how to measure it, that's an "attempt to misdirect"?

And you don't see the problem there at all? No idea?

So, not that I've given you a definition.... I'll ask again how your "theory" gets from ZERO such information to TONS of it.

All of the "evolution" that you've show us only scrambles EXISTING information. Where does the NEW information come from?

What falsifying data are you talking about? Be specific.

You're not even making sense. You didn't ask about "where the theory is proven", you asked about potential falsifications, and I gave some. All you've done since is stamp your little feet and wave your arms in a hilarious tantrum, apparently trying to distract from the fact that your question was answered.

Except for that inconvenient fact that the majority of people who accept the reality of evolution are theists. Other than that.....:chuckle:

So you think that science is about a majority vote?

 

[Jose Fly]

:chuckle: an atheist who doesn't care. Quite the cop-out for an atheist. You should probably switch to being an agnostic. That would be more respectable.

I'd say apathetic agnostic is more accurate.

This clearly explains your NEED for evolution (the goo to you kind) to be true. You have no other choice.

Sure I have other choices. At the very least, I could just adopt an "I don't know" position. But given everything I've studied about the subject, the evolutionary conclusion is ridiculously obvious. Simply put, there's a reason why the world's life scientists have agreed on this conclusion for 150+ years, and it has nothing to do with religion or theology. It's just what the data shows...period.

I opened my eyes. Am I wrong?

And what did you see that made you conclude that cats and dogs are different "kinds"?

So when an animal LOSES what it ONCE had, this is NEW?

?????????? You continue to make less sense with every post. Think of it this way....if under your religious beliefs, Noah took representatives of "kinds" aboard the ark, how did those "kinds" give rise to the diversity of species that we see around us today? Did they evolve into new species? If so, how?

You really are slow. Shuffling of existing genetic information and LOSS of it is NOT creating something NEW.

?????????? So when you said "goo to you evolution isn't observed", that was your way of saying "shuffling of existing genetic information and loss of it is not creating something new"?

How in the world was anyone supposed to get the latter from the former? :idunno:

How about this definition:

Genetic information:

"The genetic potential of an organism carried in the base sequence of its DNA (or, in some viruses, RNA) according to the genetic code."
​

Genetic code:

"the nucleotide triplets of DNA and RNA molecules that carry genetic information in living cells."
​

So, not that I've given you a definition.... I'll ask again how your "theory" gets from ZERO such information to TONS of it.

Ah, so then "genetic information" is simply strings of nucleotides. IOW, if one genome has 1,000 nucleotides and another has 1,500 nucleotides, then then one with 1,500 has more "genetic information" (because it has more nucleotides), correct?

All of the "evolution" that you've show us only scrambles EXISTING information. Where does the NEW information come from?

Oh, we'll get into that once you agree to the above.

So you think that science is about a majority vote?

??????????? The fact that the majority of people who accept the reality of evolution are theists is related to your claim that evolution is just about people rejecting God.

Try and keep up.

 

[6days]

Geneticist, Jeffery Tompkins says...

(The relationship of common *cellular process {function} and various components {genetic sequences} ]b]"could it be an example of the Creator’s wise and efficient use and re-use of genetic code in different creatures to accomplish a common and basic cellular function?[/b]

"Consider the computer world. Ask seasoned computer programmers how often they completely re-write long, complicated blocks of code when they already have what they need somewhere on file. When a long piece of previously-written code is needed and available, programmers will tailor it to fit in its new context, but they will usually not completely re-write it.

" Of course, God is the ultimate programmer, and the genetic code He developed will produce the best possible protein needed for the system in which it works. If another organism has a similar physiology, one can expect many of the same genes to be present in its genome

Some creationist at ICR says "It could be just because God made it that way". So what? Where's his actual work to back up his assertions?[/quote]

That's a wee bit of a strawman Jose. He doesn't just say 'God made it that way' just as your guy doesn't say 'evutionists made it that way'. They make conclusions based on knowledge and logic. Tompkins does understand evolution. He was given a doctorate degree in genetics by evolutionists.... however, he doesn't believe I *evolutionism since certainly He believes in the absolute truth of God's Word..*


Tompkins is not alone among geneticists who say the evidence *points towards a common Intelligent Designer. For example John Sanford is a geneticist who understands the science. He too was given a doctorate degree by evolutionists. He was a genetics prof at Cornell and has been published numerous times in secular and creationist journals.*
He says (Based on knowledge and logic) " I assert that there is one who created life and designed the genome. I do not know how he did it but somehow he's surely made the hardware, and he surely must have written the original software. He is called the author of life ( Acts 3:16 NIV )"

 

[Jose Fly]

That's a wee bit of a strawman Jose. He doesn't just say 'God made it that way'

Um, yes he does. From your own post...

"Of course, God is the ultimate programmer, and the genetic code He developed will produce the best possible protein needed for the system in which it works. If another organism has a similar physiology, one can expect many of the same genes to be present in its genome"​

That's nothing more than an assertion of religious belief with no supporting evidence whatsoever.

They make conclusions based on knowledge and logic.

No they don't. Their conclusions are based on their reading of the Bible. They even say so: ICR's Tenets.

he doesn't believe I *evolutionism since certainly He believes in the absolute truth of God's Word..*

Exactly. Thank you for reiterating my point.

Tompkins is not alone among geneticists who say the evidence *points towards a common Intelligent Designer. For example John Sanford

So? I can find you degreed scientists who believe the earth doesn't move. Are you arguing that just because a couple of degreed geneticists believe in creationism, it is therefore true?

 

[Right Divider]

I'd say apathetic agnostic is more accurate.

Then why didn't you say so? You seem to have trouble communicating.

Sure I have other choices. At the very least, I could just adopt an "I don't know" position. But given everything I've studied about the subject, the evolutionary conclusion is ridiculously obvious. Simply put, there's a reason why the world's life scientists have agreed on this conclusion for 150+ years, and it has nothing to do with religion or theology. It's just what the data shows...period.

Please feel free to list ALL of the choices that you believe are available. That would be fascinating.

And what did you see that made you conclude that cats and dogs are different "kinds"?

Because of their physical characteristics and that the don't interbreed. Pretty simple.

?????????? You continue to make less sense with every post. Think of it this way....if under your religious beliefs, Noah took representatives of "kinds" aboard the ark, how did those "kinds" give rise to the diversity of species that we see around us today? Did they evolve into new species? If so, how?

It is you that has the problem understanding.

LOSS of information does NOT turn one kind of creature into a NEW kind of creature. It simply separates EXISTING creatures.

And you call yourself an educated evolutionist?

?????????? So when you said "goo to you evolution isn't observed", that was your way of saying "shuffling of existing genetic information and loss of it is not creating something new"?

How in the world was anyone supposed to get the latter from the former? :idunno:

Your supposed "theory" needs to explain the creation of NEW creatures (and, of course, this includes the PROGRAM [their CODE] that drives them forward UP the supposed chain of that first creature all the way to man).

Ah, so then "genetic information" is simply strings of nucleotides. IOW, if one genome has 1,000 nucleotides and another has 1,500 nucleotides, then then one with 1,500 has more "genetic information" (because it has more nucleotides), correct?

If this your only hope to "win" the battle to save your "theory", then you're in pretty bad shape.

How about YOU start by explaining HOW we got from ZERO to ONE?

Oh, we'll get into that once you agree to the above.

Sure we will.

??????????? The fact that the majority of people who accept the reality of evolution are theists is related to your claim that evolution is just about people rejecting God.

Try and keep up.

I'm trying, but you're just SOOOOO smart.

 

[Jose Fly]

Then why didn't you say so?

Because you were too busy telling me what I believe, rather than just asking.

Please feel free to list ALL of the choices that you believe are available. That would be fascinating.

That would be pointless, so no thanks.

Because of their physical characteristics and that the don't interbreed. Pretty simple.

What physical characteristics tell you that dogs and cats are different "kinds"? And is the inability to interbreed the main criterion for determining "kinds"?

LOSS of information does NOT turn one kind of creature into a NEW kind of creature. It simply separates EXISTING creatures.

That doesn't even make sense. Again, let's think of it in terms of the flood story. Noah takes a breeding pair representing the "cat kind" onto the ark. After the flood, this single breeding pair gives rise to all the species of cats that exist today, from tigers to house cats.

Now obviously neither tigers nor house cats existed during the flood. The only "cats" that existed were the single breeding pair aboard the ark.

So how did tigers, house cats, lions, leopards, cheetahs, etc., come into existence after the flood?

Your supposed "theory" needs to explain the creation of NEW creatures (and, of course, this includes the PROGRAM [their CODE]

And it does.

that drives them forward UP the supposed chain of that first creature all the way to man).

You need to drop the whole concept of a chain of being. That's been out of date for well over a century. Evolution is like a branching bush, not a ladder or chain.

If this your only hope to "win" the battle to save your "theory", then you're in pretty bad shape.

How about YOU start by explaining HOW we got from ZERO to ONE?

You didn't answer the question. Is "genetic information" strings of nucleotides, where the more nucleotides an organism has the more "genetic information" it has?

 

[Right Divider]

Because you were too busy telling me what I believe, rather than just asking.

Sure.

That would be pointless, so no thanks.

Gee, I hoped you could at least give us a couple.

What physical characteristics tell you that dogs and cats are different "kinds"? And is the inability to interbreed the main criterion for determining "kinds"?

The kinds are much more broad than a species.

I'm sure that you understand that these abstractions are just that. A way of categorizing/classifying what we see in the world. And also that there are disagreements about exactly where the lines should be drawn at any level.

That doesn't even make sense. Again, let's think of it in terms of the flood story. Noah takes a breeding pair representing the "cat kind" onto the ark. After the flood, this single breeding pair gives rise to all the species of cats that exist today, from tigers to house cats.

Exactly, FROM the original kind. Not from some mythical "common ancestor of ALL life".

Now obviously neither tigers nor house cats existed during the flood. The only "cats" that existed were the single breeding pair aboard the ark.

So how did tigers, house cats, lions, leopards, cheetahs, etc., come into existence after the flood?

Through the variability of the ALREADY EXISTING genes that the ORIGINAL cat kind had (whew, that was a tough one).

And it does.

No, it most emphatically does not.

You need to drop the whole concept of a chain of being. That's been out of date for well over a century. Evolution is like a branching bush, not a ladder or chain.

A branching chain is STILL a chain that NEEDS new information. Unless, of course, you think that the currently existing genes aren't all that complex and that mutational DAMAGE is a creative force.

You didn't answer the question. Is "genetic information" strings of nucleotides, where the more nucleotides an organism has the more "genetic information" it has?

Go ahead, you define it any what that YOU want.

Once there was NONE and now there is LOTS. You're not going to weasel out of this by simply proclaiming how smart you are and how dumb everyone else is.