toldailytopic: The theory of evolution. Do you believe in it?

[Nick M]

Ignoring the Bible, how can a theory be true when it violates multiple laws of science?

 

[Selaphiel]

Ignoring the Bible, how can a theory be true when it violates multiple laws of science?

Which laws would that be?

 

[No Sheep Here]

Ignoring the Bible, how can a theory be true when it violates multiple laws of science?

like?

 

[Lighthouse]

You said: You were implying that the picture doesn't show "what was really there". Obviously it is showing what fossilized which was obviously "really there", while that isn't complete, it doesn't make the picture *wrong*.

Your logic circuit is broken.

Your argument was that there were some things that were not present at the same time as these things, based solely on this drawing. You fail.

All this because you think that scripture tells you everything must be alive at one time.

No, it doesn't.

 

[taikoo]

Ignoring the Bible, how can a theory be true when it violates multiple laws of science?

zactly so. that is one of the many reasons that the theory that creationism is valid, is utterly falsified and thrown on the trash heap of moldy superstitions....

tho some try to keep it alive as a sort of shameful electrified corpse.

 

[Alate_One]

Liar. We've had this discussion numerous times. And every time it comes up you use the same sort of example, get the same challenge and then ignore the challenge in a series of posts designed only to confuse people.

I'm not here to confuse anyone, quite the contrary. You love to accuse me of lying, but you have no evidence to back up your charges. I'm sorry you have so much trouble understanding biology Stripe, since misunderstanding is the root of your problem.

The essence is very simple. We know that there are many ways to encode the same genes that have the exact same function. Why then, if God truly made living things all at the same time from scratch, do humans and chimps and innumerable other creatures YECs insist are not related, share such a high degree of DNA sequence similarity?

Yorz's question tries to grasp at how genetic changes happen in evolution. It doesn't deal at all with the facts of the DNA data, which is what my point is all about. The exact mechanism is somewhat incidental when the evidence is obvious that it happened. THAT is what I am trying to clearly convey to you.

Y.s challenge is very, very simple. How about you face up to it?

We've done it before. It has nothing to do with my point. I've already done the math for him once, I'm not doing it again.

As I've said before his argument is like looking at a wing of a bird and saying it can't fly while flocks of geese fly over your head. You may not know the mechanism fully, but it obviously works. Yorz acts like you have to understand the aerodynamics of a bird's wing before you can possibly believe a living bird can fly.

 

[Yorzhik]

There is a major problem that Creationists have to deal with. How is it possible that the vast majority of biologists all accept the theory of evolution? How can it be that so many scientists in so many fields are convinced that the earth is many millions of years old?

There are some basic approaches to deal with this:
1. Scientists are all atheist god-haters
2. Scientists are afraid to say the truth- their colleagues will ruin them
3. Scientists are blind. There is some very simple evidence that anybody with a high school education can understand that shows that evolution is nonsense, and they just ignore it.

Did I miss any?

2

 

[Cruciform]

2

:sigh: Proof, please.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Alate_One]

Your logic circuit is broken.

Your argument was that there were some things that were not present at the same time as these things, based solely on this drawing. You fail.

My heavens. MY logic circuit is broken? How many times do I have to remind you the drawing is simply a representation of most if not all of the fossils found at a famous site in Canada.

The odds of whales, modern fish and other vertebrates ACTUALLY being present and leaving absolutely no evidence behind, despite the fact that conditions for fossilization were apparently near perfect (even very soft bodied animals were fossilized), is almost nil. Then combine that with fossil sites with similar problems around the world and you have very strong evidence that successive waves of different organisms have inhabited the earth.

No, it doesn't.

So you think the Bible tells of progressive creation then?

 

[Alate_One]

you have not even made an attempt to explain why this is a problem for special creation of each creature.

I've explained it multiple times. Why would God, creating humans and all other animals totally separately and uniquely, purposefully make humans and chimpanzees so genetically similar when we know it is NOT necessary to do so?

It does make sense if God used evolution to create the diversity of life, including humans.

You have been asked to do so but all i hear is either obfuscation with irrelevant technicalites or the cbirping of crickets.

You mean the technicalities that clarify my argument? Frankly, you have made it clear that you're not interested in expending the effort to determine what is "irrelevant" in terms of the discussion. You complained only a few posts ago that the discussion was just "too technical". If you want to discuss evolution and the molecular evidence for it (which in my opinion is by far the strongest evidence), you're going to have to deal with the underlying biology and biochemistry at some level.

 

[Stripe]

Did I miss any?

Yes. The biggest problem we have to deal with is atheists dumb enough to post popularity as if it is evidence for something.

I'm not here to confuse anyone, quite the contrary. You love to accuse me of lying, but you have no evidence to back up your charges.

Liar.

I'm sorry you have so much trouble understanding biology Stripe, since misunderstanding is the root of your problem.

Liar. Y's challenge is very simple. Bet you cannot restate it simply and without pejorative.

The essence is very simple. We know that there are many ways to encode the same genes that have the exact same function. Why then, if God truly made living things all at the same time from scratch, do humans and chimps and innumerable other creatures YECs insist are not related, share such a high degree of DNA sequence similarity?

Why not?

This challenge is laughable. You need to go away, sit down and think through what you're trying to do here.

We've done it before. It has nothing to do with my point. I've already done the math for him once, I'm not doing it again.

Liar. The last conversation took weeks for you to get anywhere. This time will be no different.

As I've said before his argument is like looking at a wing of a bird and saying it can't fly while flocks of geese fly over your head. You may not know the mechanism fully, but it obviously works. Yorz acts like you have to understand the aerodynamics of a bird's wing before you can possibly believe a living bird can fly.

You really believe Y. promotes something so silly?

:sigh:[FONT="Georgia"] Proof, please. [I]Gaudium de veritate[/I], Cruciform+T+[/FONT]

:rotfl:

 

[voltaire]

Alateone asked why God selected a particular set of gene sequences that were identical in the human and chimp genome when a multitude of genes can produce the same enzyme or protein. If the totality of phenotopic expression for a gene was the production of a protein, then she has a point. However that is not the case: Pleiotropy - Wikipedia,
the free encyclopedia
Pleiotropy occurs when a
single gene influences
multiple phenotypic traits.

 

[Yorzhik]

But my point is because there are a huge number of possible DNA sequences for every gene that have identical functions, why do creatures thought to be evolutionarily related share them? If they were separately created we would expect them to either be totally different or all virtually identical.

Let's see, what is more scientific: deciding if something happened or not based on personal preference, or deciding if something happened or not based on physical possibilities or barriers?

You love to accuse me of lying, but you have no evidence to back up your charges.

Here's a lie: "We've done it before. It has nothing to do with my point. I've already done the math for him once, I'm not doing it again."

You've never done the math on TOL.

Why then, if God truly made living things all at the same time from scratch

God didn't make each animal from scratch as if He had no idea what happened when He made the last animal. God made them knowing what He knew about making life forms. God has a common vision, but different personalities within. So there is that difference, plus working from a common toolbox mixed with imagination.

It doesn't deal at all with the facts of the DNA data

Sure it does. I believe your facts and think they are interesting. But your conclusion means little because it can't be quantified. It relies on knowing some engineers' personal preference.

And, BTW, the reason certain organisms are evolutionarily related is because evolutionists fit them where they need to go to suit whatever relationships they need to show.

As I've said before his argument is like looking at a wing of a bird and saying it can't fly while flocks of geese fly over your head. You may not know the mechanism fully, but it obviously works. Yorz acts like you have to understand the aerodynamics of a bird's wing before you can possibly believe a living bird can fly.

What we've got is a situation where we can see the geese, but the wings we are studying are made of lead. The creationists are saying "something's wrong", but the evolutionists insist the lead wings make the geese fly, and the evolutionists are too arrogant to notice the serious problem of trying to attribute a birds flight to lead wings, they just keep yelling "look! the geese fly! how they fly with lead wings is incidental".

 

[Alate_One]

Liar.Liar. Y's challenge is very simple. Bet you cannot restate it simply and without pejorative.

He's trying to get me to do step by step mechanistic evolution using DNA, but there are too many unknowns to do it properly at current. If I had infinite time and resources for my lab (and/or access to better protein 3D structure prediction software) I could actually go through what he wants to do.

There are plenty of examples of evolution that has already occurred that we can go through. But none of them are good enough for Yorz. He keeps setting the bar so high that he knows it can't be met. Typical YEC tactic.

Liar. The last conversation took weeks for you to get anywhere. This time will be no different.

Partly because Y takes ages to respond, probably for RL reasons.

You really believe Y. promotes something so silly?

That is in essence what he is doing.

In any case 80% of this post is you calling me a liar without basis. You are adding nothing to the discussion. I don't see any point in continuing this conversation.

 

[voltaire]

We do not know how many of the sequences that are identical in both human and chimps , exhibit pleitropy. For the sequences that do, could any one of the hundreds of possible sequences that produce identical enzymes, exhibit the exact same pleiotropy as the existing sequence? If they cannot, then the genome will not function as before.

 

[Alate_One]

We do not know how many of the sequences that are identical in both human and chimps , exhibit pleitropy. For the sequences that do, could any one of the hundreds of possible sequences that produce identical enzymes, exhibit the exact same pleiotropy as the existing sequence? If they cannot, then the genome will not function as before.

Pleiotropy is when one gene product (protein) has more than one effect. It is not caused by different DNA sequences that produce the same protein. It's caused by a protein that has multiple effects. Nice try, but that doesn't fix the problem.

 

[Dr.Watson]

Stripe links the following in another thread:

When your opponent is correct and you can’t refute his arguments,... You smear his character. Mock and ridicule him personally. Call him a liar, even when you know he’s correct. Anything to cover up the fact that he’s right.

Typical Stripian behavior:

Yes. The biggest problem we have to deal with is atheists dumb enough to post popularity as if it is evidence for something.

Liar.Liar. Y's challenge is very simple. Bet you cannot restate it simply and without pejorative.

This challenge is laughable...

Liar.

Anyone else with an ounce of intellectual integrity see's right through the facade.

 

[Tyrathca]

Y.s challenge is very, very simple. How about you face up to it?

If it is so simple why doesn't Y do the maths for himself? Why should others make an argument for him, especially when it has already been pointed out to be very tedious. It is his argument after all.

Then again it epitomises the laziness of most creationists in debate, continually ask questions about evolution that you should be able to answer yourself and then claim victory when people can't be bothered answering. All the while completely ignoring that anyone answering the question is investing several orders of magnitude more time than the creationist asking it, only to be rewarded with another equally lazy question. It is a lopsided way to have a debate and after a while we just get bored and realise we have better things to do.

 

[Alate_One]

Let's see, what is more scientific: deciding if something happened or not based on personal preference, or deciding if something happened or not based on physical possibilities or barriers?

There is no deciding based on "personal preference". We look at ALL the evidence available.

Here's a lie: "We've done it before. It has nothing to do with my point. I've already done the math for him once, I'm not doing it again."

You've never done the math on TOL.

I HAVE done the math for you already, Liar. You and Stripe follow the same pattern, you accuse and accuse and even when confronted you'll do anything to keep from admitting you're wrong.

God didn't make each animal from scratch as if He had no idea what happened when He made the last animal. God made them knowing what He knew about making life forms. God has a common vision, but different personalities within. So there is that difference, plus working from a common toolbox mixed with imagination.

He didn't HAVE to use identical DNA sequences to make humans and chimps. And if it was just a common toolkit, why aren't the sequences for every other animal virtually identical also? Instead there is a very clear pattern of similarities AND differences. Similarites and differences that have no bearing on function. And I'm not even talking about pseudogenes at this point.

Sure it does. I believe your facts and think they are interesting. But your conclusion means little because it can't be quantified. It relies on knowing some engineers' personal preference.

It relies on the likelihood of patterns being true. If the pattern we have is just "God's preference" and an instantaneous "poof creation" is what happened, He has gone out of His way to make it look AS IF evolution occurred. And we look at this, plus pseudogenes, plus fossils, plus biogeography, plus developmental biology etc. and it becomes more and more ridiculous to deny the obvious.

And, BTW, the reason certain organisms are evolutionarily related is because evolutionists fit them where they need to go to suit whatever relationships they need to show.

The relationships were originally derived from character states. Physical traits like particular bone structures or teeth. And strangely enough the DNA confirmed the trees that were drawn using anatomy.

Molecular genetics and Evidence for evolution

What we've got is a situation where we can see the geese, but the wings we are studying are made of lead.

You SAY that but provide no evidence to support your assertion. We can see how the muscles work in the wings but you keep insisting there must be some magical thing that stops them from working.

 

[KINGOFKNGS]

And, BTW, the reason certain organisms are evolutionarily related is because evolutionists fit them where they need to go to suit whatever relationships they need to show.

This is a rather ambiguous statement. Perhaps you could back this up with an example.

Would you say that if we compare three different species, a fair conclusion would be that the two species with the most similar DNA are the most closely related, or would this just be something that an evolutionist has made up? (Assume that all individuals of species 1 have the same DNA, the same for 2 and the same for 3.)