Problems for evolution — squid recodes its own RNA

[The Barbarian]

Her conclusion was almost the same as Biblical creationists...mutations are not a mechanism that can change bacteria into biologists.

Barbarian chuckles:
I don't think so...

You don't think so because...

...I've actually read what Margulis has written.
Michod’s talk was the perfect lead-in for the penultimate lecture of the conference by the acknowledged star of the weekend, Lynn Margulis, famous for her pioneering research on symbiogenesis. Margulis began graciously by acknowledging the conference hosts and saying, “This is the most wonderful conference I’ve ever been to, and I’ve been to a lot of conferences.” She then got to work, pronouncing the death of neo-Darwinism. Echoing Darwin, she said “It was like confessing a murder when I discovered I was not a neo-Darwinist.” But, she quickly added, “I am definitely a Darwinist though.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/...argulis-d.html

I've actually read The Origin of Eukaryotic Cells, and you've made it abundantly clear that you haven't. You just gathered up a bundle of quote-mined snippets and supposed that summed up what Margulis wrote. Because you don't bother to read things that might challenge your belief system, you this all comes as a complete surprise to you.

Margulis was an evolutionist

More specifically, she was, by her own words, a Darwinian biologist. You were persuaded otherwise because you let other people do your thinking for you.

Only God creates, but evolution does produce new structures functions and new taxa. All of which has been directly observed.

 

[6days]

*You just gathered up a bundle of quote-mined snippets and supposed that summed up what Margulis wrote.

Yes...you claimed I provided a quote out of context so Username posted the article for you.

Unlike you I knew evolutionary biologist Margolis rejected mutations and selection as the mechanism of evolutionism.*


Sort of funny but Discovery Institute (not creationists), is having a spat with the president of heretical Biologos over the issue. Stephen Meyer of DI says mutations and natural selection can't account for the divergence of life in the Cambrian, implying a Creator. Biologos president Deborah Haarsma wants God out of the picture completely it seems; she argues that everything can be explained with mutations and selection. Fortunately, Haarsma does not speak for most Christians, nor even for a few of her own writers. *

 

[6days]

I know much of Margulis. She never thought gods changed life. Her opinion involved viral DNA being injected into a cell and being accepted into the cell DNA. This is how she thought change occurred.

Hey..... Welcome to TOL!. Yes, you are right that she rejected the Creator. * Too bad she wasn't willing to follow the evidence to the Creator God of the Bible.

 

[The Barbarian]

Sort of funny but Discovery Institute (not creationists), is having a spat with the president of heretical Biologos over the issue.

One heretic to another, um? But I think you still don't know what "heretic" means.

Stephen Meyer of DI says mutations and natural selection can't account for the divergence of life in the Cambrian, implying a Creator.

Sounds like a testable claim. What change from the Precambrian to the Cambrian could not have happened by mutation and natural selection? Be specific, and show your evidence.

Prediction: no such specific changes will be offered, and no evidence for general claims will be provided.

 

[6days]

Creationist definition of "real evolution:"
"Change in a population that happens too slowly to be observed in a human lifetime."

For reasons we all understand.

BTW.... add that comment of yours... if you are compiling a list of your arguments that were dishonest..
I have argued here in TOL that the creationist model is rapid adaptation and speciation.
We serve an awesome Creator who is the only explanation for the beauty and diversity in this world.

 

[6days]

Sort of funny but Discovery Institute (not creationists), is having a spat with the president of heretical Biologos over the issue.

One heretic to another, um?

Pethaps but Im unaware of Discovery Institute encouraging people to believe that Jeaus made mistakes, like Biologos does.*

Stephen Meyer of DI says mutations and natural selection can't account for the divergence of life in the Cambrian, implying a Creator.

Sounds like a testable claim. What change from the Precambrian to the Cambrian could not have happened by mutation and natural selection? Be specific, and show your evidence.

You are getting silly now. Our argument in this thread is that mutations and selection don't, and can't account for the various kinds of animals. Observable science shows how organisms adapt...and often rapidly. *Your belief system requires you to believe in the unobservable.*


The vast majority of organisms (with exception *of sponges and possibly Kimberella) in the Ediacaran bear no resemblance to to those in the Cambrian. In other words the pre-cambrian 'animals' like dickinsonia, spriggina and charnia may be plants. They don't have head, gut, sensory organs, *eyes etc.

Prediction: no such specific changes will be offered, and no evidence for general claims will be provided.

Your predictions like your 'science' is simply a false belief system.

God's Word *tells us that in the beginning He created the various kinds.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Not sure why this is focusing on Lynn Marghulis. She is more at odds with the creationist position than she is with The modern synthesis, and her position regarding the latter have not been substantiated by recent discoveries.

 

[Jose Fly]

Not sure why this is focusing on Lynn Marghulis. She is more at odds with the creationist position than she is with The modern synthesis, and her position regarding the latter have not been substantiated by recent discoveries.

Because 6days' creationist sources lied to him by making it seem as if she was more on their side than the science side, but once he got caught blindly repeating this dishonesty, he's been scrambling to prop up this failed, dishonest creationist talking point.

 

[Jose Fly]

Stephen Meyer of DI says mutations and natural selection can't account for the divergence of life in the Cambrian, implying a Creator.

Who cares what Meyer says about the Cambrian? He is quite literally, 100% scientifically irrelevant.

 

[Selaphiel]

The idea that Lynn Margulis secretly agrees with creationism is absolutely absurd. Her criticism was primarily a criticism of Neo-Darwinism, not of Darwinism per se. She argues that there are other mechanisms for evolution than random mutations, namely symbiogenesis, which is as far as I know an accepted part of evolutionary theory today. Her thesis is that symbiotic relationships between species are very important to explain evolutionary changes, as opposed to a view that only emphasizes the competition aspect of evolution.

She did not deny the evolutionary view of the diversification of life or common ancestry, that is a ludicrous claim. I guess 6days hase been a victim of creationist quote mining again, just like when they try to make Gould out to be an anti-Darwinian. Intellectual honesty and responsbile citations and references is not part of the creationist methodology.

 

[Stripe]

The idea that Lynn Margulis secretly agrees with creationism is absolutely absurd.

Great. When you find someone who says otherwise, you will have a slam-dunk case. :thumb:

 

[User Name]

I'm unaware of Discovery Institute encouraging people to believe that Jeaus made mistakes, like Biologos does.

Henry M. Morris of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) wrote, in 1999 that Intelligent Design "...will not work! It has often been tried in the past and has failed, and it will fail today. The reason it won't work is because it is not the Biblical method." In 2002, Carl Wieland, then of Answers in Genesis (AiG), criticized design advocates who, though well-intentioned, "left the Bible out of it" and thereby unwittingly aided and abetted the modern rejection of the Bible.​

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

 

[Stripe]

:blabla:

Please try to not be a troll. :thumb:

 

[User Name]

Please try to not be a troll. :thumb:

I don't know how what I posted qualifies as trolling. I think it's a fair point to know that leading young-earth creationists oppose Intelligent Design. The Discovery Institute's own website states:

Indeed, according to AIG, "many prominent figures in the IDM reject or are hostile to Biblical creation, especially the notion of recent creation...Creationists believe that God made current life-forms from scratch. The ID movement takes no position on how life got here, and many adherents believe in evolution. Some even grant a role to the evolutionary engine posited by Darwin: natural selection."​

Link to source: http://www.discovery.org/a/1329

Elsewhere, the Discovery Institute states:

ID holds that there are tell-tale features of living systems and the universe that are best explained by a designing intelligence. The theory does not challenge the idea of evolution defined as change over time, or even common ancestry, but it disputes Darwin's idea that the cause of biological change is wholly blind and undirected.​

Many in the Intelligent Design movement reject the idea of a recent creation and believe in evolution via intelligent, directed processes. That sounds like a variation of theistic evolution to me.

 

[Stripe]

:blabla:

When you have something relevant to share, let us know. :up:

 

[6days]

I think it's a fair point to know that leading young-earth creationists oppose Intelligent Design.

True...We oppose ID If it ignores Biblical truth, and doesn't give credit to our Creator.

Intelligent Design scientists have put out some great articles, *but they don't generally take a direct position on God's Word. If anything they generally oppose the creationist position.

Barbarian suggested that Discovery Inst. is heretical like Biologos. I don't think thats true because DI does not publish anti-christian articles as does Biologos. *There is a thread on the topic one page back if you want examples.

 

[User Name]

DI does not publish anti-christian articles as does Biologos.

The Discovery Institute may not frequently publish anti-YEC articles as does Biologos, but the DI apparently does actively oppose YE creationism; see this link for example:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/discovery_insti_1055841.html

 

[noguru]

True...We oppose ID If it ignores Biblical truth, and doesn't give credit to our Creator.

Intelligent Design scientists have put out some great articles, *but they don't generally take a direct position on God's Word. If anything they generally oppose the creationist position.

Barbarian suggested that Discovery Inst. is heretical like Biologos. I don't think thats true because DI does not publish anti-christian articles as does Biologos. *There is a thread on the topic one page back if you want examples.

So in your view, any class on origins that does not teach your interpretation of Genesis is not accurate science at all, since it leaves your view of Genesis out of the science curricula?

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

The Intelligent Design movement was started primarily by American Creationists to circumvent court rulings that barred the teaching of Creationism in American public schools.

 

[User Name]

The Intelligent Design movement was started primarily by American Creationists to circumvent court rulings that barred the teaching of Creationism in American public schools.

Have their views changed? See the following: Discovery Institute Condemns Passage of Creationism Bill by Indiana Senate as Bad Science and Bad Education