|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Since 1981 you've been looking for evidence of creation and you've not yet found any? What would that evidence look like?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
RAZD writes: Just as understanding the genetic similarities with pigs was useful in finding vaccines for ... Swine influenza Really. Ok, there are similarities. So what? These similarities exist whether one is an evolutionist, a creationist, a Hindu, a Scientologist or a Freemason. In other words, the existence of the genetic similarities between humans and pigs is independent of the theory that humans and chimps have a common ancestor ... and the theory that all life on earth shares a common ancestor. Therefore, I suspect that you are mistaken - the theory of common descent was a complete irrelevance in developing swine flu vaccine. Ok, so I've looked into this and cannot find any reference that says it was used in making the vaccine. What I did find was that it was useful in understanding how these diseases originated and were spread -- because of the genetic similarity between humans and apes and pigs. This genetic similarity is due to descent from common ancestor, which is known from the genetic markers that are non-coding sections of DNA that are common in the same places and can only come from inheritance ... unless you like billion to 1 odds repeated hundreds of times or a jester god that make it look like common descent. 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 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dredge writes:
Shouldn't YOU be the one looking for evidence of creation? What would YOU consider to be evidence of creation? Since 1981 you've been looking for evidence of creation and you've not yet found any? What would that evidence look like? Or are you just anti-evolution/anti-science?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
I see anecdotal evidence of creation every day - a beautiful woman, for example! But scientifically speaking, there is irreducible complexity, for starters.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
I see anecdotal evidence of creation every day - a beautiful woman, for example! ... The product of millennia of generations of sexual selection, which also selects your reaction to her beauty ...
... But scientifically speaking, there is irreducible complexity, for starters. Irreducible complexity has been scientifically falsified. See Irreducible Complexity, Information Loss and Barry Hall's experiments for a thread on this. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Dredge writes:
What about ugly women then? What about parasitic worms?
I see anecdotal evidence of creation every day - a beautiful woman, for example! Dredge writes:
Irreducible complexity is not scientific.
But scientifically speaking, there is irreducible complexity, for starters.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
RAZD writes:
I'm not the slightest bit surprised.
I've looked into this and cannot find any references that says it was used in making the vaccine. What I did find was that it was useful in understating how these diseases originated and were spread - because of the genetic similarity between humans and apes and pigs.
"because of the genetic similarity between humans and apes and pigs" - not because of any theory about common descent. In other words, common descent is irrelevant and is actually of no practical use to anyone.
This similarity is due to descent from a common ancestor.
This is just Darwinist rhetoric. I could offer the explanation that the similarity is due to all life being created by the same Creator, who used the same "building blocks" in all life forms. But my Creationist model doesn't assist or advance applied science - and neither does your Darwinist model of common descent.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
"because of the genetic similarity between humans and apes and pigs" - not because of any theory about common descent. In other words, common descent is irrelevant and is actually of no practical use to anyone. And yet the genetic similarity is due to common descent, which is shown by the genetic markers that serve to purpose but show up in the same locii in different species. Having one such common marker is highly unlikely -- different mutations randomly occurring in the same place, two become astromomically squared, three becomes insanely improbable.
This is just Darwinist rhetoric. I could offer the explanation that the similarity is due to all life being created by the same Creator, who used the same "building blocks" in all life forms. ... You could indeed, however that means you believe in a god that provides false evidence and tries to make fools of people. A jester god like Loki?
Somehow I don't believe that is your goal. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Dredge writes: In post #392 RAZD claimed that the theory that humans and apes have a common ancestor "was useful in finding vaccines for HIV". It would be a waste of time to find that information because as soon as we supplied it you would shift the goal posts to "bacteria and humans sharing a common ancestor". You have shown that you have no interest in knowledge, facts, or science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Dredge writes: Really. Ok, there are similarities. So what? These similarities exist whether one is an evolutionist, a creationist, a Hindu, a Scientologist or a Freemason. In other words, the existence of the genetic similarities between humans and pigs is independent of the theory that humans and chimps have a common ancestor ... and the theory that all life on earth shares a common ancestor. The evidence for evolution is a nested hierarchy which creationism can't explain. It isn't simply shared characteristics. The useful part of evolution is that it predicts a phylogenetic signal.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The evidence for evolution is a nested hierarchy which creationism can't explain. ... Including the genetic evidence in the non-coding 'junk' sections where their existence and preservation can only be explained by (a) evolution or (b) a jester hoodwinking god. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
RAZD writes: Including the genetic evidence in the non-coding 'junk' sections where their existence and preservation can only be explained by (a) evolution or (b) a jester hoodwinking god. As you have noted, the species distribution and LTR divergence of endogenous retroviruses is a perfect explanation. In recent threads we have seen at least 3 common creationist misconceptions of evolution: 1. Species should evolve out of their clade.2. Observations of natural selection is used as evidence for common ancestry. 3. Similarities alone evidence evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2273 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Except that since ENCODE it has been clear that there is little junk DNA. More functions are being discovered in what was formerly called junk, even in pseudogenes.
The argument from ERV's only applies if they are part of the junk and they were indeed caused by past viral infections. However some ERV's have been shown to be part of functional DNA, and the evidence that they came from past infections is only based on similarity. Since we don't see ERV's moving toward fixity now viruses must have stopped doing it a long time ago.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2273 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
1. Species should evolve out of their clade. 2. Observations of natural selection is used as evidence for common ancestry. 3. Similarities alone evidence evolution. 1. Species should evolve out of their clade.No but species should evolve to produce new clades nested within clades and the ultimate clade is the one beginning with LUCA. 2. Observations of natural selection is used as evidence for common ancestry.Darwin proposed natural selection as the cause of common ancestry so in that sense it is evidence. Often observations of natural selection are touted as evolution in action; such as Darwin's Finches and Trinidad Guppies. 3. Similarities alone evidence evolution.Isn't that how cladistics works? By creating a tree based on similarities? Cladistics (from Greek κλάδος, klados, i.e., "branch") is an approach to biological classification in which organisms are categorized based on shared derived characteristics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes:
Darwinists claim antibiotic resistance is an example of evolution. creationist misconceptions of evolution ... Observations of natural selection is used as evidence for common ancestoryAntibiotic resistance is nothing more than natural selection. Common ancestry is evolution. ... Therefore Darwinists use natural selection as evidence for common descent.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024