Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8936 total)
28 online now:
dwise1, GDR, jar, Tanypteryx (4 members, 24 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,614 Year: 16,650/19,786 Month: 775/2,598 Week: 21/251 Day: 21/23 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bible accepts evolution
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1932
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 31 of 80 (371469)
12-21-2006 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by 4Pillars
12-21-2006 5:47 PM


Re: homo spaiens - modern mankind
Just because a Creature has bones, which look like another creature's bones, or have similar DNA does Not mean that both sets of bones or DNA evolved from the same ancestor -- but instead, is evidence that we all have a Common Creator. His name is Jesus.

Why would an all powerful and all knowing being need to reuse pieces of other organisms? laziness?


Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor
This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by 4Pillars, posted 12-21-2006 5:47 PM 4Pillars has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6800
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 7.1


Message 32 of 80 (371470)
12-21-2006 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by 4Pillars
12-21-2006 5:47 PM


It's the over-all pattern that counts
You are correct, Pill, in that a few common features, whether in morphology or in genetics, doesn't prove things one way or another. But I wrote a couple of posts in another thread detailing how it is the pattern in the common features that provide good evidence for common descent. And once we accept common descent, it is not such a bad idea to use the degree of similarity to determine who our closest cousins are.

My posts are:

www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=10&t=187&m=29#29 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=10&t=187&m=29#29">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=10&t=187&m=29#29

www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=10&t=187&m=64#64 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=10&t=187&m=64#64">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=10&t=187&m=64#64


I have always preferred, as guides to human action, messy hypothetical imperatives like the Golden Rule, based on negotiation, compromise and general respect, to the Kantian categorical imperatives of absolute righteousness, in whose name we so often murder and maim until we decide that we had followed the wrong instantiation of the right generality. -- Stephen Jay Gould
This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by 4Pillars, posted 12-21-2006 5:47 PM 4Pillars has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by 4Pillars, posted 12-21-2006 6:27 PM Chiroptera has responded

  
4Pillars
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 80 (371472)
12-21-2006 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Chiroptera
12-21-2006 6:04 PM


Re: It's the over-all pattern that counts
Thanks, Chiroptera!!!I like what I see in your link. Keep up with the good job.

But anyway, so far my all my opposition have shown is genomic similarities. And they are INTERPRETING that discovery as support for their view. That’s fine and dandy, but guess what? That’s just ONE INTERPRETATION. I could also interpret that same discovery in light of my view. That the similarities are there because they all came from one Designer, just like the Porsche and the Volkswagen Beetle have similarities (like engines in the back) because they were designed by the same person. So what they have given as verification, is no verification at all but a mere interpretation (rolling my eyes).

Similarly, in your case (OT), if a malfunction in a printing press caused a book to be printed with every page doubled, it would not be more informative than the proper book. (Brave students of evolutionary professors might like to ask whether they would get extra marks for handing in two copies of the same assignment.

Yeah right... :-)

Edited by 4Pillars, : No reason given.

Edited by 4Pillars, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Chiroptera, posted 12-21-2006 6:04 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-22-2006 12:25 AM 4Pillars has responded
 Message 46 by Chiroptera, posted 12-22-2006 3:45 PM 4Pillars has not yet responded

  
4Pillars
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 80 (371482)
12-21-2006 7:18 PM


MACRO-Evolution is a Lie
Dear Readers,

"Microevolution or descent with modification is the process that is responsible for the many variations and adoptation of species or living things, such as dogs and finches.

As I ahve posted before....

Microevolution or descent with modification happens every time a baby is born. It is God's way of keeping "kinds" within their own "kinds". Micro assures that dogs remain dogs.... cats remain cats...they evolve or change...but within their own "kind".

Example: Cat's Family - A Lion (male) and a Tiger (female) producing Giant "LIGER". See link (scroll all the way down).

http://www.lairweb.org.nz/tiger/ligers.html

See, it really amazing how the discovery of Science Today support the TRUTH of the Bible written many centuries ago -- the sons of God (prehistoric mankind) producing GIANT offsprings - Mighty Men of old, men renown - AFTER their union with the Daughters of Men, as documented in Genesis 6!!!

On the other hand, Macro-Evolution is a Lie from the pits of Hell and excludes God from His own Creation. The fact that God continues to Create confuses those who believe wolf like ungulates evolved into Whales.

IOW, Macroevolution is the mythical process by which one kind of creature, such as a reptile, turns into another kind, such as a bird."

Such acceptance by Blind Faith is typical for most Evols. With little or No evidence, these zealous worshippers claim they don't have Evol Religion, but their own words betray them.


Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by ringo, posted 12-21-2006 7:24 PM 4Pillars has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17276
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 35 of 80 (371484)
12-21-2006 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by 4Pillars
12-21-2006 7:18 PM


Re: MACRO-Evolution is a Lie
4Pillars writes:

See, it really amazing how the discovery of Science Today support the TRUTH of the Bible written many centuries ago

Now, that's close the actual topic, which is: the Bible accepts evolution.

Specifically, the OP gives two examples where the Bible supposedly acknowledges evolution. I have argued against the second example. Do you have any comment on the topic? :)


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by 4Pillars, posted 12-21-2006 7:18 PM 4Pillars has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by 4Pillars, posted 12-21-2006 8:16 PM ringo has not yet responded

  
4Pillars
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 80 (371490)
12-21-2006 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by ringo
12-21-2006 7:24 PM


Re:
Dear Ringo,

Honestly, I agree with you and jaywill. In fact, both of you made a very good point. And, I don't think I could said any better. :-)

You are correct, the second example has nothing to do with micro-evolution, whatsoever.

He should have cited the making of Eve from Adam's rib -- now that is mutation and duplication (cloning) with added "new fuction" but no new genetic information - one flesh. :-)

Therefore, I will give credit where the credit is due -- to both of you, of course.

Edited by 4Pillars, : No reason given.

Edited by 4Pillars, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by ringo, posted 12-21-2006 7:24 PM ringo has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 80 (371528)
12-22-2006 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by 4Pillars
12-21-2006 6:27 PM


Re: It's the over-all pattern that counts
Similarly, in your case (OT), if a malfunction in a printing press caused a book to be printed with every page doubled, it would not be more informative than the proper book.

But if it inserted one letter, or repeated a letter, or removed a letter, and the only way you could read it was one letter at a time, then it would have caused a whole shift in the rest of the 'information' in the book.

This would be, in fact, new information. This malfunction (random mutation) can actually add information, and cause benefital mutations that can cause enough change in a species that this changed species can no longer reproduce with the parent species and then evolution has occured.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by 4Pillars, posted 12-21-2006 6:27 PM 4Pillars has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by 4Pillars, posted 12-22-2006 9:16 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
platypus
Member (Idle past 4008 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 11-12-2006


Message 38 of 80 (371544)
12-22-2006 3:20 AM


On topic
Pillars,

Your arguments concerning information and kinds has been addressed in another thread. Confidence relayed a position very similarto yours in that thread, and has yet to respond to the arguments offered by RAZD and I. Perhaps you'll be inclined to try your hand. Here's the link:

www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=11&t=277&m=31 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=11&t=277&m=31">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=11&t=277&m=31

As for the topic of this thread, I grant that neither of my examples point to "macroevolutionary trends," as creationists like to think of them. Yeah, the second example is pretty bad, I stopped replying because I tended to agree with your responses and because I haven't read the Bible recently and wasn't knowledgeable enough to comment. I don't really think whether the Bible says anything about evolution or not makes any difference in the matter, the truth is the truth, no matter what the Bible says. That statement will probably anger some people. Or maybe get them to more closely examine their worldview. Maybe... Hopefully...


    
4Pillars
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 80 (371574)
12-22-2006 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by New Cat's Eye
12-22-2006 12:25 AM


Re: It's the over-all pattern that counts
quote:
But if it inserted one letter, or repeated a letter, or removed a letter, and the only way you could read it was one letter at a time, then it would have caused a whole shift in the rest of the 'information' in the book.

This would be, in fact, new information. This malfunction (random mutation) can actually add information, and cause benefital mutations that can cause enough change in a species that this changed species can no longer reproduce with the parent species and then evolution has occured.


Read my lips very slowly...

"Different genes" is not the same as "new genes", you still don't get any new genetic information, just less...

And in case you missed it the first time I posted it...

Carl Sagan, ardent evolutionist, admitted: '... mutations occur at random and are almost uniformly harmful—it is rare that a precision machine is improved by a random change in the instructions for making it.' (Carl Sagan, The Dragons of Eden, Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1977, p. 28.)

To illustrate: if “superman” were the duplicated “gene”, and mutations in the letters changed it to “sxyxvawtu ”, you have clearly lost information, although you have a new sequence. This is the difference between complexity and specified complexity. A pile of sand is complex , but is information-poor, because it specifies nothing. (source)

BTW, what does it got to do with the topic, heh?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-22-2006 12:25 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-22-2006 10:25 AM 4Pillars has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 80 (371585)
12-22-2006 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by 4Pillars
12-22-2006 9:16 AM


Re: It's the over-all pattern that counts
Read my lips very slowly...

:rolleyes:

"Different genes" is not the same as "new genes", you still don't get any new genetic information, just less...

So you assert....

"Different genes" can produce new genetic information.

"New genes" are not required for new genetic information.

And in case you missed it the first time I posted it...

Carl Sagan, ardent evolutionist, admitted: '... mutations occur at random and are almost uniformly harmful—it is rare that a precision machine is improved by a random change in the instructions for making it.' (Carl Sagan, The Dragons of Eden, Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1977, p. 28.)

Your Argument from Authority supporting your Argument from Incredulity doesn't need repeating. Also, Sagan isn't saying that it is impossible, just that it is rare, so your logical fallacy isn't even supporting your argument to begin with.

You are just refusing to 'believe in' evolution. You have beliefs that you feel evolution contradicts. If you incounter evidence that goes against you beliefs then you maintain your belief and ignore (or refuse) the evidence. It is intellectually dishonest. You should form your beliefs around the available evidence, not form the available evidence around your beliefs.

To illustrate: if “superman” were the duplicated “gene”, and mutations in the letters changed it to “sxyxvawtu ”, you have clearly lost information, although you have a new sequence.

That's a poor ilustration.

Consider this:

superman gets changed to supperman. A small increase in information (genetic mutation). Now, lets just read the letters three at a time, assuming genetic information is read like this, in these litle sequences.

Before the change we have: sup, upe, per, erm, rma, man. (some amount, X, of information).
After the change we have: sup, upp, ppe, per, erm, rma, man.

Make sense?

So in both cases we have sup, per, erm, rma, and man. No loss or gain, or change at all in the individual from those sequences.

We have lost one sequence and that is 'upe' but we have gained two sequences, 'upp' and 'ppe'.

The majority of the info has remained the same so this, presumably will not have detrimental effects on the individual. Some info has been lost, which could just kill it, who knows. And some info has been gained, which too could just kill it. But it is not impossible that this new information provides the individual with a benefit.

You assert that it is, impossible.

Do you understand the words that are comming out of my mouth?

BTW, what does it got to do with the topic, heh?

Once you accept evolution we can discuss if the Bible does too.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by 4Pillars, posted 12-22-2006 9:16 AM 4Pillars has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by 4Pillars, posted 12-22-2006 11:05 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
4Pillars
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 80 (371599)
12-22-2006 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by New Cat's Eye
12-22-2006 10:25 AM


Re: It's the over-all pattern that counts
quote:
So you assert....

"Different genes" can produce new genetic information.

"New genes" are not required for new genetic information.


Nice Strawman argument, however, that is not my assertion but your own made up premise & lying story.

Such arrogance and ignorance is rarely seen especially from those who called themselves "catholic scientist" -- but could not distinguish the difference between "new function" vs. "new genetic information" -- based on scientific definition -- to prove their blind faith in MACRO-evolution.

Here, for you additional learning ....

"Mutations have been scientifically observed to give an organism a new function (descent with modification or micro-evolution), they have not however been observed to make the organism more complex, that is, building upon the existing DNA which must be required for evolution to advance (macro-evolution). In other words there has never been a mutation that has increased or added to the genetic information of an organism."

"The fact is that since mutations only scramble the existing DNA to achieve a different read-out, resulting in (at times) a beneficial adaptation to the enviroment, this cannot be evolution! In fact, within the observable science we have on mutations, it is creation that predicts the types of changes we see created by them." (source)

http://creationwiki.org/CB102

Now, the question is -- are those genes you mentioned classified as entirely NEW KIND from the genes' (classification) that it came from, originally - in order to support your claim of macro-evolution?

IF SO, SHOW US A PROOF OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM WITHOUT APPEALING TO MICRO-EVOLUTION'S PROVEN AND ACCEPTED EVIDENCES.

Edited by 4Pillars, : No reason given.

Edited by 4Pillars, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-22-2006 10:25 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-22-2006 11:21 AM 4Pillars has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 80 (371606)
12-22-2006 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by 4Pillars
12-22-2006 11:05 AM


Re: It's the over-all pattern that counts
quote:
So you assert....
"Different genes" can produce new genetic information.

"New genes" are not required for new genetic information.


Nice Strawman argument, however, that is not my assertion but your own made up premise & lying story.

Sorry for causeing confusion. I didn't meant that you asserted what followed that line. I meant that you asserted what preceded it. What followed it was my reply to your assertion.

Please re-reply to the post with this clarification.

I put a lot of time in explaining it to you, the least you could do is actually reply to it.

Again, sorry for the confusion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by 4Pillars, posted 12-22-2006 11:05 AM 4Pillars has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by 4Pillars, posted 12-22-2006 12:36 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
4Pillars
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 80 (371642)
12-22-2006 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by New Cat's Eye
12-22-2006 11:21 AM


Re: It's the over-all pattern that counts
You have not explain anything to me that is based on reality or proven scientific fact.

In order for me to answer your hypothetical question or assumption, first, you must show us where is a real-world scientifically observable example of a mutation producing “New Genetic Information. I am all ears (((((((

What you have tried to cite in your example is frame-shifting of the sequence of DNA. The frame-shift mutation did not add onto the existing DNA rather it only scrambled what was there to begin with.

Did you even try to read and understand the link I have provided you?

Here is a simple example of how a frame-shift mutations works:

ONE FAT FOX ATE THE CAT

The frame-shift would delete the first ‘T’ to shift over the letters after the word containing the 'T', the sentence becomes:

ONE FAF OXA TET HEC AT

Indeed this example doesn't make the frame-shifted DNA read-out mean anything, but in the case of the nylon-metabolising enzyme’s it worked. In most other cases a frame-shift mutation is not a good thing and causes a disruption to the genes.

The evolutionist would claim that the bacteria has indeed increased information as it produced a new read-out. But this new read-out is still a subset of the already existing DNA. The frame-shift mutation did not add onto the existing DNA rather it only scrambled what was there! There is no way around it, the variation or changes cannot become massive changes needed because if all it does is re-arrange the existing DNA it is limited to that DNA. That is why if they could produce some natural process that builds on, not scrambles the existing DNA to cause a new function they would have something. If anything I would say this is a special adaptation mechanism in play, which would be creationism, rather than evolution observed.

All we have is a fast mutating species, and after millions of generations of reproduction, it still retains the basic properties as originally described when discovered in 1889 and is still identifiable as itself. You may disagree, but I find it quite evident that the DNA genome can recombine in specific pre-programmed ways for specific purposes in relation to the enviroment. All the nylon bug displays is an example of this.

That the bacteria mutate so that they can break down nylon waste as their food sources can still fall under the creationist model until the bacteria literally become something else. Then and only then will evolution have a strong case in the realm of mutations being the mechanism for the massive changes needed. (same source)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-22-2006 11:21 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by platypus, posted 12-22-2006 2:40 PM 4Pillars has not yet responded

  
platypus
Member (Idle past 4008 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 11-12-2006


Message 44 of 80 (371657)
12-22-2006 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by 4Pillars
12-22-2006 12:36 PM


Re: It's the over-all pattern that counts
Pillars,

Please read through these links:
www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=661&m=283#283 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=661&m=283#283">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=661&m=283#283
www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=11&t=277&m=46 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=11&t=277&m=46">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=11&t=277&m=46

Basically, the issue you're raising is old news, and has all ready been refuted in several different forms on this forum. The basic problem is that once a clear, exact definition is given for information, it can be shown to increase, usually by a increase in the total length of the genome, which can be done by something as simple as gene duplication. If you say gene duplication isn't new information, it just says the same thing over again, I'm going to say define information in such a way that it can be measured. Basically read the above threads before progressing any further, and see if you still have anything useful to add to the discussion.


You hear evolutionist says we are descedant from apes and monkees. Sure, but that's not the point. All of life is related, not just human's with monkees. If you hug a tree, you're hugging a relative, a very distant relative, but a relative nonetheless." Dr. Joan Roughgarden in Evolution and Christian Faith
This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by 4Pillars, posted 12-22-2006 12:36 PM 4Pillars has not yet responded

    
AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 556 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 45 of 80 (371662)
12-22-2006 2:59 PM


INFORMATION OFF TOPIC
Information and genetics is really off topic for this thread. This thread is in the Bible Study forum and is titled "Bible accepts evolution"

Please take the information and genetics posts to a new thread.

I suggest that before one can discuss whether or not information is gained one would have to have a definition of information that all agree on.


AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures

  • Thread Reopen Requests

  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:

  • "Post of the Month Forum"

  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
  • See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

    http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com
        
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019