Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation science II
Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 5151 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 286 of 312 (502681)
03-12-2009 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by Stagamancer
03-12-2009 5:17 PM


Re: Accomplished What?
"Scientists are not defending evolution because they hate creationists or because they think Darwin was a swell guy."
No, they see natural selection as a fact of nature and try to justify it's existence because it's so inherently cruel. Once they have built this God-Principal they spend the rest of their lives trying to justify it's existence and enthrone it as a deity.
Fortunately, it's just a tiny little portion of our world that acts in a very un-godly like manner where the weak die.
It's not a fundamental force that caused life to come into being. It's part of a decaying process that will eventually be laid to rest itself. An infinitely inferior degradation of the process that built the cosmos.
Edited by -Sky-, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Stagamancer, posted 03-12-2009 5:17 PM Stagamancer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by Taq, posted 03-12-2009 6:13 PM Sky-Writing has replied
 Message 298 by Stagamancer, posted 03-12-2009 6:47 PM Sky-Writing has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 287 of 312 (502682)
03-12-2009 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by Sky-Writing
03-12-2009 5:35 PM


Re: Accomplished What?
Any evidence that electrons mutate & evolve? Or that ANYTHING else in the known Cosmos Mutates and Evolves?
Ring species demonstrate mutation and evolution, and all of the intermediates (transitionals) are still there to be studied.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-12-2009 5:35 PM Sky-Writing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-12-2009 6:17 PM Coyote has replied

Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 5151 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 288 of 312 (502683)
03-12-2009 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by Dr Jack
03-12-2009 5:41 PM


Re: Show it, don't say it.
Hello and welcome, -Sky-. (snip)...this will show you the markup they used to make their post.
Thanks Jack. I wondered what "peek" was for.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Dr Jack, posted 03-12-2009 5:41 PM Dr Jack has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 289 of 312 (502684)
03-12-2009 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by Sky-Writing
03-12-2009 5:35 PM


Re: Accomplished What?
My point being that the entire body, bone, soft, all structure of every type, both fossilized and current, living structure should be wildly diverse and in a state of flux from one form to another
That's exactly what we see in both the fossil record and in extant species.
Any evidence that electrons mutate & evolve?
We are talking about biological organisms that replicate imperfectly and compete for limited resources.
You're making excuses that the Evo-Theory isn't blatantly clear because soft tissue decays too quick to preserve fossils. Hardly accurate. And AAaaack!
Even if we didn't have a single fossil the genetic evidence would be more than enough to point to the theory of evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-12-2009 5:35 PM Sky-Writing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-12-2009 6:23 PM Taq has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 290 of 312 (502685)
03-12-2009 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by Sky-Writing
03-12-2009 5:49 PM


Re: Accomplished What?
No, they see natural selection as a fact of nature and try to justify it's existence because it's so inherently cruel.
We observe natural selection in action. From these observations we are able to predict what we should see in the genomes of living species. We then test these predictions, and they have passed with flying colors.
So what predictions does creation science make when it comes to specific comparisons of DNA between species? Any? How are these predictions testable?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-12-2009 5:49 PM Sky-Writing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-12-2009 6:39 PM Taq has replied

Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 5151 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 291 of 312 (502686)
03-12-2009 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by Coyote
03-12-2009 5:56 PM


Re: Accomplished What?
Ring species demonstrate mutation and evolution, and all of the intermediates (transitionals) are still there to be studied.
Never heard of them. So it doesn't qualify as "All pervasive, blatant, or clearly foundational" then does it.
OK... I just researched it. Again, Darwin's mistake. The idea that because a salamander has a lot of natural variation built into it's DNA that it will evolve into some other creature given enough stress in it's life.
Sorry.
Yes, lots of variation.
No, that's due to mindless mutations.
There are limits to how far the particular animal can change, and likely none of that range is due to genetic mutation. More likely is that those limits will all become more obvious when we declassify the purpose of "junk DNA". The idea that it's all just leftovers is being eaten away by "Science" a little bit every day.
That's why I'm both an advocate of Science and a critic of Scientific Historians who rewrite their findings to their own liking.
My disdain is for branches of "Science", who produce nothing of value to humans. Like the idea that organic mud is my source of life. Mud should taste better then at least. And look nicer on ones face.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Coyote, posted 03-12-2009 5:56 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by Taq, posted 03-12-2009 6:26 PM Sky-Writing has not replied
 Message 295 by Coyote, posted 03-12-2009 6:31 PM Sky-Writing has not replied
 Message 296 by Stagamancer, posted 03-12-2009 6:38 PM Sky-Writing has replied
 Message 309 by ICANT, posted 03-12-2009 7:15 PM Sky-Writing has not replied

Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 5151 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 292 of 312 (502687)
03-12-2009 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by Taq
03-12-2009 6:11 PM


Re: Accomplished What?
Even if we didn't have a single fossil the genetic evidence would be more than enough to point to the theory of evolution.
Any reason then that most Geneticists believe that God is responsible for the creation of DNA?

- Sky-

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Taq, posted 03-12-2009 6:11 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by Taq, posted 03-12-2009 6:27 PM Sky-Writing has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 293 of 312 (502688)
03-12-2009 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by Sky-Writing
03-12-2009 6:17 PM


Re: Accomplished What?
The idea that because a salamander has a lot of natural variation built into it's DNA that it will evolve into some other creature given enough stress in it's life.
The point is that there is enough variation that the populations at one side of the ring are actually separate species. A new species is "some other creature".
There are limits to how far the particular animal can change, and likely none of that range is due to genetic mutation.
How does one test for these limits?
Also, if you compare the chimp and human genome could you tell us which differences are due to mindless mutations and which are not? How would you do so?
It would appear that the limit of mutations is the diversity we see in all extant species and in the fossil record, plus those species that will evolve in the future.
My disdain is for branches of "Science", who produce nothing of value to humans.
Look up phylogenomics and comparative genomics at No webpage found at provided URL: www.pubmed.com. A whole lot of papers that directly apply the theory of evolution to produce very useful information.
So what has Creation Science produced that is useful?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-12-2009 6:17 PM Sky-Writing has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 294 of 312 (502689)
03-12-2009 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by Sky-Writing
03-12-2009 6:23 PM


Re: Accomplished What?
Any reason then that most Geneticists believe that God is responsible for the creation of DNA?
Of those geneticists, how many have offered testable hypotheses for their beliefs? Where can I read these papers?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-12-2009 6:23 PM Sky-Writing has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 295 of 312 (502690)
03-12-2009 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by Sky-Writing
03-12-2009 6:17 PM


Re: Accomplished What?
Ring species...
Never heard of them. So it doesn't qualify as "All pervasive, blatant, or clearly foundational" then does it.
Your answers are straight out of the creation "science" playbook.
Particularly, if it seems to support evolution, deny it. You may not know what it is but deny it anyway.
You're opening posts are not very impressive, nor even very entertaining. Certainly they do nothing to convince me that you are an advocate of real science. More likely we'll be hearing about the "true" science that creation "scientists" have been talking about lately. ("True" science being any science that has nothing to do with evolution.)
I suspect your real goal here is to promote creationism in the guise of creation "science." That's the exact opposite of science.
Bye for now.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-12-2009 6:17 PM Sky-Writing has not replied

Stagamancer
Member (Idle past 4915 days)
Posts: 174
From: Oregon
Joined: 12-28-2008


Message 296 of 312 (502691)
03-12-2009 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by Sky-Writing
03-12-2009 6:17 PM


Re: Accomplished What?
Never heard of [ring species]. So it doesn't qualify as "All pervasive, blatant, or clearly foundational" then does it.
Your ignorance does not make ring species any less pervasive, blatant, or clearly foundational. If you look through the scientific literature, you will find just how pervasive the examples are, and how much they influence evolutionary theory.
a salamander has a lot of natural variation built into it's DNA that it will evolve into some other creature given enough stress in it's life.
individuals do not evolve
My disdain is for branches of "Science", who produce nothing of value to humans. Like the idea that organic mud is my source of life. Mud should taste better then at least. And look nicer on ones face.
Who are you to pass judgement on the value of a whole branch of science? Maybe you should look into how the individual research papers have influenced others. You're like Bobby Jindal mocking volcano monitoring.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-12-2009 6:17 PM Sky-Writing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-12-2009 6:51 PM Stagamancer has replied

Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 5151 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 297 of 312 (502692)
03-12-2009 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by Taq
03-12-2009 6:13 PM


Re: Accomplished What?
So what predictions does creation science make when it comes to specific comparisons of DNA between species? Any? How are these predictions testable?
1. That all evolutionary "Series" will be thrown out.
To my knowledge - yes
2. That all "species" or whatever designation you use will show up farther and farther back in the fossil record.
Yes
3. That the DNA comparisons will have the same structure as my Avatar.
Similar parts will be found suitable for similar uses.
-Tires made of rubber.
-Axles help the wheels turn.
-Metal creates a framework
-Red is a pretty color
All of those findings point to a common source. Yet none evolved from the other by way of mutation. Common data but different conclusions.
4. Darwins branches on the tree will ALL have separate sources with no branching at all. Take a sideways slice through every branch. That's the direction real science and DNA is taking us.
Edited by -Sky-, : No reason given.

- Sky-

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Taq, posted 03-12-2009 6:13 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by Stagamancer, posted 03-12-2009 6:54 PM Sky-Writing has not replied
 Message 301 by Taq, posted 03-12-2009 6:59 PM Sky-Writing has replied

Stagamancer
Member (Idle past 4915 days)
Posts: 174
From: Oregon
Joined: 12-28-2008


Message 298 of 312 (502694)
03-12-2009 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by Sky-Writing
03-12-2009 5:49 PM


Re: Accomplished What?
No, [scientists] see natural selection as a fact of nature and try to justify it's existence because it's so inherently cruel.
So scientists are just a bunch of sadistic asses that revel in the destruction of the weak? I think you'll find many who feel quite the opposite.
Once they have built this God-Principal they spend the rest of their lives trying to justify it's existence and enthrone it as a deity.
Once again, who IS they? There is no evolution conspiracy. If I come across ANY evidence disproving evolution by natural selection in my research, you can bet I will publish, publish, publish, and then you can clap as I receive my Nobel prize. I am not the only one who would do this either. However, until I find this type of evidence, or someone else does, I and the rest of the scientific community will accept evolution as a fact, and evolution by natural selection as a valid theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-12-2009 5:49 PM Sky-Writing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-12-2009 7:01 PM Stagamancer has not replied

Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 5151 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 299 of 312 (502695)
03-12-2009 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by Stagamancer
03-12-2009 6:38 PM


Re: Accomplished What?
Who are you to pass judgment on the value of a whole branch of science?
It's WAY smaller and MUCH more unless than you imagine. For proof, you suggest no actual benefits...because you can't think of any.
The concept that one species will mutate into another species has no value to humankind. What's to judge? There is nothing there.
As for Inherent Variation in a species DNA, I like it. It helps me tell you apart from mud. And it helps keep the animals around for us to eat them. Not that I get a huge kick out of that, but it is what it is.
Why does every state in the union have laws that separate humans from animals? Because we aren't.
Edited by -Sky-, : Eating my words...(kidding).....spelling...add a sig...the usual.

- Sky-

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Stagamancer, posted 03-12-2009 6:38 PM Stagamancer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by Stagamancer, posted 03-12-2009 7:02 PM Sky-Writing has not replied
 Message 304 by Taq, posted 03-12-2009 7:03 PM Sky-Writing has not replied
 Message 307 by dwise1, posted 03-12-2009 7:09 PM Sky-Writing has replied

Stagamancer
Member (Idle past 4915 days)
Posts: 174
From: Oregon
Joined: 12-28-2008


Message 300 of 312 (502696)
03-12-2009 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by Sky-Writing
03-12-2009 6:39 PM


Re: Accomplished What?
Darwins branches on the tree will ALL have separate sources with no branching at all. Take a sideways slice through every branch. That's the direction real science and DNA is taking us.
Do you have any sources that show this? With sequence data and phylogenetic trees?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-12-2009 6:39 PM Sky-Writing has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024