|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Faith writes: I think a great deal of junk in the genome fits with the Fall, being one of the ways death has worked on living systems. You think a lot of things. The trouble you have is providing evidence for what you think. The first problem you need to solve is why we see greater conservation of sequence between species for functional DNA as compared to junk DNA.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Dredge writes: Thank you for supplying this article. I will add it to my collection as it represents a classical example of mendacious Darwinist propaganda. The only mendacious propaganda is the claim that if common ancestry is not used in a practical manner in the field of medicine that common ancestry can't be true.
Secondly, when it says, "the evolutionary principle of common descent has proven its usefulness", this is really Darwinist-speak for, "the fact of genetic similarities between different organisms has proven its usefulness." This is explained by the fact that Darwinists consider that there can be no other possible explanation for genetic similarities between organisms other than common descent. So when they see said genetic similarities, they see common descent. This false equivalence is a form of intellectual alchemy, but is de rigueur in evolutionary "science". As you have already shown, creationism can't explain the nested hierarchy. Evolution can. Evolution is currently the only explanation we have for the observed pattern of shared derived characteristics, including DNA sequences. Even you couldn't explain how creationism could produce this pattern of similarity. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2270 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Ah, the ever unreliable Talk Origins. I wouldn't worry about anything from that discredited atheist web site.
t4t
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Ah, the ever unreliable Talk Origins. I wouldn't worry about anything from that discredited atheist web site. Especially not the references ...
quote: After all they are just scientists, what do they know. Much better to ignore and insult from a strong stand on ignorance. Your cognitive dissonance is showing. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
CRR writes:
Discredited by creationists? That's kinda like saying the FBI was discredited by Dillinger.
I wouldn't worry about anything from that discredited atheist web site.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 195 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Talkorigins is chock full of evidence disproving your fantasy so you go with the ad hominem fallacy. Obviously that's all you got.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Talk Origins = Talk Atheist Theology = Talk Satanic Fairy Tale
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Your cognitive dissonance is showing.
quote: Creationists are typically very good at the latter way. One of the additional methods is to discredit the source of dissonant information so you feel justified in ignoring it. Unfortunately pretending you have discredited it only fools yourself and your co-deluded willingly ignorant cohorts. Don't bother to check the references, that would be too much like work. To say nothing about actually challenging your beliefs ... Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
aristotle Junior Member (Idle past 2504 days) Posts: 16 Joined: |
The exon/intron divergence can be satisfactorily explained as the result of the relative overabundance of synonymous sites involved in CpG dinucleotides:
Neutral Substitutions Occur at a Faster Rate in Exons Than in Noncoding DNA in Primate Genomes "I have learned from my own embarrassing experience how easy it is to concoct remarkably persuasive Darwinian explanations that evaporate on closer inspection." - Daniel Dennet
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
aristotle Junior Member (Idle past 2504 days) Posts: 16 Joined: |
For discussion's sake, if there was a creator, why is it that you think life could not be created in this hierarchical phylogenetic structure?
Edited by aristotle, : No reason given."I have learned from my own embarrassing experience how easy it is to concoct remarkably persuasive Darwinian explanations that evaporate on closer inspection." - Daniel Dennet
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
aristotle Junior Member (Idle past 2504 days) Posts: 16 Joined: |
A common ancestry does not disprove creation, nor does it prove evolution.
If there were a transitional species for each and every genetic advancement, that would be proof of evolution.That's not the case. The species don't progress little bit by little bit, but remain constant over long periods, and are abruptly replaced. Here's a challenge, pick any modern species. Now go and find at least one individual transitional organism for each beneficial mutation that changed said species into it's current form. That would prove evolution beyond a doubt, over 100 years later, we're still waiting to be shown the missing links. Edited by aristotle, : No reason given. Edited by aristotle, : No reason given."I have learned from my own embarrassing experience how easy it is to concoct remarkably persuasive Darwinian explanations that evaporate on closer inspection." - Daniel Dennet
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9510 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
aristotle writes: For discussion's sake, if there was a creator, why is it that you think life could not be created in this hierarchical phylogenetic structure? There's no reason. In fact that is precisely what the vast majority of Christians believe happened. The Catholic church says this explicitly. They accept evolution to the point of H. Sapiens, then inject a 'soul, - whatever that is. Alternatively, if you're suggesting that your god created all things in a heirarchy and also embedded ancient descendents within it in fossil forms in one moment of creation (including frigging the geological record), then there is no way of showing that you're wrong - except to ask why he'd do such a thing. (You'd probably be asked to provide the biblical evidence to support that claim too.)Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hello Aristotle, and welcome to the fray
Evolution is Religion Nope. Curiously your choosing this icon demonstrates ignorance of how science works. You have a lot to learn, it appears, and this is a good place to learn it ... if you are willing to learn. The essential difference between religion and science is a willingness to learn and change beliefs through evidence.
A common ancestry does not disprove creation, nor does it prove evolution. As I have said many times, the closest fit to "kinds" as the term is used by creationists is clades. They form a nested structure where all descendants come from the parent clade population by breeding within their populations. Evolution occurs in those populations in response to ecological challenges leading to gradual changes in each population, isolation leads to different changes and thus to speciation.
... The species don't progress little bit by little bit, but remain constant over long periods, and are abruptly replaced. Some do, some don't. You are talking about punctuated equilibrium. Not all evolution occurs through that mechanism.
If there were a transitional species for each and every genetic advancement, that would be proof of evolution. That's not the case. ... Every individual is a transitional, however the fossil record in often incomplete. We do have some examples though, such as Pelycodus:
quote: That's a lot of transitional populations. Even more can be seen with foraminifera.
Now go and find at least one individual transitional organism for each beneficial mutation that changed said species into it's current form. How much change are you expecting to see? This is an important question because a lot of creationists seem to have false expectations. Is a black mouse different enough from a tan mouse to make it a new species?
Message 490: For discussion's sake, if there was a creator, why is it that you think life could not be created in this hierarchical phylogenetic structure? What we usually see from creationists is the use of the term "kind" to be a vaguely defined clade system of hierarchical phylogenetic structure, and the issue is not clades and hierarchies of nested clades, but how far back in time that system runs. For the creationist it has to stop at a time of creation with a distinct number of original "created kinds" all appearing suddenly at the same time. The fossil record does not show this -- what it does show the nested clades not stopping until you get back in time to the first life forms 3.5 billion years ago, single celled life forms. Enjoy
... as you are new here, some posting tips: type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy and you can type [qs=RAZD]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
RAZD writes: quotes are easy or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote: also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window. For other formatting tips see Posting TipsFor a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
aristotle Junior Member (Idle past 2504 days) Posts: 16 Joined: |
Wow you assume very much!
I do not know whether or not there was a creator, I was merely asking why, if one did exist, it could not create life forms in this hierarchical way. And planting fossils? Seriously? Don't try pigeonhole me as some idiot bible basher, I'm not claiming god buried the fossils to trick us! The fossils could just be older creations. And why must it be in one moment of creation? Why wouldn't it create something, observe, modify, etc. Over long periods of time, why do you assume the creation must all be in 'one moment'. Regards, aristotle"I have learned from my own embarrassing experience how easy it is to concoct remarkably persuasive Darwinian explanations that evaporate on closer inspection." - Daniel Dennet
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
aristotle Junior Member (Idle past 2504 days) Posts: 16 Joined: |
Thanks for the reply RAZD
Nope. Curiously your choosing this icon demonstrates ignorance of how science works. You have a lot to learn, it appears, and this is a good place to learn it ... if you are willing to learn. The essential difference between religion and science is a willingness to learn and change beliefs through evidence. I have studied evolution a long time, learned a lot about it, and it is very much like a religion in that it is unprovable by definition. We can only assume that the organisms who survived where the most evolved, we can never prove this. Anyone who says different is immediately labeled 'ignorant' (see above), reminds me a lot of religion.
As I have said many times, the closest fit to "kinds" as the term is used by creationists is clades. Yes you lot seem to have trouble with definitions, as I recall, Darwin could not even precisely define the word 'species'.
They form a nested structure where all descendants come from the parent clade population by breeding within their populations. Evolution occurs in those populations in response to ecological challenges leading to gradual changes in each population, isolation leads to different changes and thus to speciation. Again, you can only retrospectively assume that to be the truth. This has never been known to happen, a mutation has never added information to the genome, it's not that easy.
Some do, some don't. You are talking about punctuated equilibrium. Not all evolution occurs through that mechanism. 'Punctuated Equilibrium' is a ludicrous theory invented by evolutionists to try explain away the trend of saltation in the fossil record. Don't try using it on me, won't work. One of the predictions for the theory is that the evidence (transitional species) will not be found, so the evidence is that their is no evidence! It's truly ludicrous.
How much change are you expecting to see? This is an important question because a lot of creationists seem to have false expectations. Is a black mouse different enough from a tan mouse to make it a new species? According to evolution by natural selection, saltations are impossible, an organism must evolve one genetic variation at a time. Therefore, I expect to see one organism for each genetic variation that lead to the organism's current form. If there is not an organism linking each and every genetic advancement to it's predecessor, how can we be sure saltations did not take place? Regards, aristotle"I have learned from my own embarrassing experience how easy it is to concoct remarkably persuasive Darwinian explanations that evaporate on closer inspection." - Daniel Dennet
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024