Can Creationists Show Evolution Never Happened?

Just to be clear- the debate is NOT whether or not evolution occurs because evolution can mean many things. Evolution, being a change in allele frequency over time, is not what is being debated. Bacteria mutating into bacteria is not being debated. A virus mutating into a virus is not being debated.Mark24:
The organic bases, Guamine, Thymine, Cytosine, & Adenine are grouped together in pairs (A & T, G & C) in DNA. Three pairs of bases forms a codon. There are 90,000,000 codons in 40,000 genes in a single strand of human DNA.John Paul:
This is misleading. A codon is 3 bases- not 3 pairs of bases. For example an amino acid (triplet)is a codon. Also the number of genes in humans is still under investigation.Biotech CEO Says Map Missed Much of GenomeWhat is being debated is if the observed evidence of evolution can be extrapolated to infer the great transformations required if the ToE is indicative of reality. In other words do small changes and eons of time = great transformations?Extrapolating From Small ChangesEnough examples can be given to cast doubt on the speculation that mutations can just accumulate over eons of time to give rise to the alleged great transformations. For example- There isn't any observable, testable, repeatable or verifiable genetic or biological evidence to support the idea that giraffes evolved from 'short necked' ancestors.The differences between a Creationist and an evolutionist, on the subject of evolution, are:The starting point of evolution.The extent that evolution can occur.The apparent direction evolution is taking life.The other point Creationists make is that we don't have to know life's origins (not necessarilly how life started but what population of organism(s) started life's diversity) in order to know how the mechanisms of life work and how to maintain that life.Can you tell me what in biology would change if there is a limit to evolution? Would it affect HIV research? No. Would it affect immunology? No. All it would change is text books and peoples PoV.Schrafinator:
Why are there 4 identical nonfunctional retrovirus inserions in identical locations on the genome of both humans and chimpanzees? The only way that such things have been observed to happen is through inheritence, so the only way that the IDENTICAL ones could be there is if chimps and humans have a common ancestor.John Paul:
That is not so. Common mechanism is also another way to explain retr-viral insertions.
"If the DNA in Humans, Chimps, Monkeys, etc., are very similar, then if they are all infected by the same virus, would we expect the virus to do the same thing in the different species? I think so.

​

The "dreaded endogenous retroviral sequence common to both chimp and human DNA" is probably the major example of Common Mechanism. Viral enzymes (proteins) react with specific DNA sequences. If both chimp and human DNA have the same active sites, I would expect the viral proteins to react in the same exact way to both human and chimp."from:Pseudogenes: a description of the problem------------------
John Paul

mark24:
I only adhere to evolution as the best explanation in the absence of empirical evidence of a creator.John Paul:
That's funny. I adhere to Creation as the best explanation in the absence of empirical evidence for abiogenesis and the theory of evolution. Ya see I infer a Creator (or Intelligent Designer if you like) because of life itself. Evolutionists like to simplify life. Back when we thought the living cell was a blob of proto-plasm, you had an argument. But since we started opening up Darwin's black boxes we should know better. If the polls are correct, most of us do know better as the polls point to 'atheistic' (or materialistic naturalism if you prefer) evolutionists being a very small minority. I know science isn't done by polls but it looks like people find your arguments un-compelling.------------------
John Paul

Gee joz, do I have to keep you current on everything?Gallup Poll on human evolutiononce at the Gallup website you can search for other polls on evolution, that is if you dare...------------------
John Paul

moose:
Your macro-evolution is the cumulative results of a series of micro-evolutions.John Paul:
That is the assertion now isn't it? However the problem starts when speciation is lumped in with macro-evolution, which it is according to Dr. Theobald's talk origins article on the 29 evidences for macro-evolution.So perhaps you would care to answer this:Please name a single, unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutations.------------------
John Paul

slp:
JP tried it - I pointed out the contradictions and shadiness in his links, he flipped out and is now ignoring me.John Paul:
I am ignoring you because you offer nothing to debate. You only think you found contradictions & shadiness in the links I provided. Big difference nbetween that and there actually being contradictions and shadiness.------------------
John Paul

schraf:
Are you saying that you think that ID is scientific?John Paul:
I would say it is as scientific as any ToE presented to date.schraf:
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that ID is simply a modern way to say "God of the Gaps?"John Paul:
Nope. ID says nada about God.------------------
John Paul

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Paul:
Nope. ID says nada about God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
joz:
Um bud is there any other solution to the identity of this IDer than God? If so what? If not then ID does contain a very strong subtext of we dont understand it so Goddidit......John Paul:
Hey bud! What does knowing the IDer give us to understanding what that IDer designed? Nothing unless the IDer is going to give us a ToK (transfer of knowledge) that will help us understand its purpose, function and how to maintain it. That is the purpose right? To understand how something functions so that it can be properly maintained?Also maybe you infer a very strong subtext of 'Goddidit' but is not implied. The IDer could be aliens from a distant galaxy, could be the pink unicorns on Uranus (yours not mine, I have Klingons ) or could be any entity with the intelligence to Create life. Of course that does not stop people from inferring God was the IDer. People can infer what they want until evidence comes about that contradicts that.bud read the following:IDers are from Mars, ID critics are from Venus------------------
John Paul

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Paul:
Also maybe you infer a very strong subtext of 'Goddidit' but is not implied. The IDer could be aliens from a distant galaxy, could be the pink unicorns on Uranus (yours not mine, I have Klingons ) or could be any entity with the intelligence to Create life. Of course that does not stop people from inferring God was the IDer. People can infer what they want until evidence comes about that contradicts that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
joz:
Er bud unless you accept that all of these aliens, Unicorns and other assorted frolicsome beasties are not irreducibly complex you are back to square one with a hey nonny nonny and GODDIDIT all over the place.John Paul:
Why? Because you say so? ID does not, repeat, DOES NOT, say anything about God.joz:
Since IDers claim even the simplest organisms are IC then we can safely assume that they are postulating some sort of supernatural entity as the IDer, ergo they postulate Goddidit....John Paul:
Good thing you don't get to tell IDists what they postulate. If you really think this way perhaps it is time you dive in and learn about ID.------------------
John Paul

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Paul:
joz:
Since IDers claim even the simplest organisms are IC then we can safely assume that they are postulating some sort of supernatural entity as the IDer, ergo they postulate Goddidit....John Paul:
Good thing you don't get to tell IDists what they postulate. If you really think this way perhaps it is time you dive in and learn about ID.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
joz:
Sorry Pal I thought one of Behe`s arguments was to do with protein structure and how if some parts are missing the protein ceases to function... How does this not apply to anything which has a biochemistry which uses proteins?John Paul:
And what does that have to do with what you said and I replied to? (see the reply quote you used)ID does not postulate God. Period.joz:
On another note the ultimate IDer must be of supernatural origin otherwise ToE is still the best hypothesis of how a naturaly occuring intelligence came to be. Isn`t it?John Paul:
I'm just care about life on Earth. Once we get over that hurdle then we can press on. Did you run before you could crawl?joz:
How else could it have happened?John Paul:
Maybe once we get a handle on life here, we will be better able to answer that question.joz:
On another note you are posting somehow in a way that interferes with the reply/quote option have a look to see if you can`t sort it out will you........John Paul:
Yeah, I'll get right on it...------------------
John Paul

joz:
I would of thought that it had everything to do with it If the IDer could not have been biological as proteins are IC then it leaves nothing but Goddidit (or some sort of sentient machine, and given the fact that Behe considers a five part mousetrap IC I cant see that as a possible solution)....John Paul:
Perhaps you would care to show us that his 5 part mousetrap is not IC.joz:
ID may not postulate God anywhere in any of its literature but it DOES infer that the IDer is of a supernatural origin.... Semantically equivalent to Goddidit....John Paul:
Again I refer you to IDers are from Mars, ID critics are from VenusThis time read it.Also ID doesn't infer anything. You do the inferring.------------------
John Paul

jimlad:
JP, what everyone is getting at is if life was designed, who designed it?John Paul:
That is irrelevant. We do NOT need to know the designer to determine design.jimlad:
And who designed the designer? etc. etc. etc. Sooner or later a god has to be invoked...John Paul:
More irrelevance. Please explain why you think that matters in order to deduce design, figure out the function and learn how to maintain that function.------------------
John Paul

I doesn't matter if God did it or not, if the designer is a supernatural entity or not, in order to determine design. It also doesn't matter how life started, what/ who designed the designer etc. All that matters (as far as I can tell) is we are able to determine its (the design's) function and how to maintain it.------------------
John Paul

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Paul:
I doesn't matter if God did it or not, if the designer is a supernatural entity or not, in order to determine design.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schraf:
Really? How so? How does one determine if something is designed or if it came about by natural processes?John Paul:
For one you could run it through Dembski's Design Explanatory filter and see what you get.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It also doesn't matter how life started, what/ who designed the designer etc. All that matters (as far as I can tell) is we are able to determine its (the design's) function and how to maintain it.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schraf:
If it doesn't matter if Godidit or not, then why send me to Christian "scientific" Creationist sites?John Paul:
And by the same token why do want me to believe that all of life's diversity arose from some as yet unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms which just happened to have the ability to reproduce?schraf:
If you don't think that the Bible should be taken as a scientific document, then why do you have a problem with the idea of common descent and the ToE?John Paul:
Who said the Bible was a scientific document? Not I. The Bible is a collection of historical & philosophical documents. And guess what? It has been verified using science. Imagine that!Further I don't see that the alleged evidence for CD/ToE is very compelling. Add that to the fact it doesn't matter at what life started in order to resolve its function and maintenace of.------------------
John Paul

schraf:
I think that you are more interested in hunkering down with your preferred belief and defending that belief, no matter what mental gymnastics you have to do to avoid really looking at the evidence.John Paul:
I can say the same thing about evolutionists.schraf:
I do not think you look at the evidence honestly. I do not think you have doen much, if any, study of Biology, geology, or science in general.John Paul:
And I really don't care what you think. I have 4 years of college biology and zoology. I also have a degree in engineering, which is applied science. To get that degree it is obvious I had exposure to and an understanding of, science. Just last year I receicved a big bonus and plaque that states "For excellence in your scientific approach to resolving the tough issues"schraf:
I care about the misrepresentation of science that you have been perpetrating, and I also care about the attempt by the Religious Right to co-opt the trappings and language of science to further it's own religious/political agenda.John Paul:
If you are calling the ToE 'science' then I say you are the one misrepresenting it. Also I am not part of the religious right.schraf:
The question of how life started is not a part of the Theory of Evolution. The ToE deals with life once it got here.John Paul:
Oh really? I heard that before. However I can site a well known biologist that states otherwise. "The evolutionist Kerkut defined this ‘General Theory of Evolution’ (GTE) as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’ He continued: ‘the evidence which supports this is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis.’"** Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960schraf:
If your problem is only with Abiogenesis then why do you have a problem with the ToE?John Paul:
I don't see the evidence as being compelling for either. I do see the evidence as being compelling for the Creation model of biological evolution though.------------------
John Paul