Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Scientists Question Darwinism

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Derf
    replied
    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    Well, let's take a look...

    "Alignment of amino acid sequences is informative for the phylogenetic relationships among the hemoglobins in bacteria, fungi, protists, plants and animals."

    It says quite clearly that the amino acid sequences in hemoglobin indicates the evolutionary relationships of hemooglobins in bacteria, fungi, protists, plants, and animals. Seems pretty clear to me.
    It says quite clearly NOTHING OF THE KIND. All that sentence says is that the alignment is "informative". Are you now trying to tell me that "informative" means "indicative of evolutionary relationships"? No wonder we had such a hard time seeing eye-to-eye on the creation narrative in Genesis. You read way too much into sentences not meant to say so much. The author goes on to explain what he meant: "alignments of non-coding DNA sequences do not reveal significant matches even between mammalian alpha- and beta-globin gene clusters" (emphasis mine). He is stating, quite clearly, that there is not evident evolutionary relationship, even when he apparently tried to read it into the data.

    What it says is that the non-coding DNA strands (that don't function to produce proteins like hemoglobin)that serve as inducers of hypoxic activation don't appear to show phylogenies. Which is why they said at the beginning:

    "The discovery of hemoglobins in virtually all kingdoms of organisms has shown (1) that the ancestral gene for hemoglobin is ancient, and (2) that hemoglobins can serve additional functions besides transport of oxygen between tissues, ranging from intracellular oxygen transport to catalysis of redox reactions. These different functions of the hemoglobins illustrate the acquisition of new roles by a pre-existing structural gene, which requires changes not only in the coding regions but also in the regulatory elements of the genes."
    Yes, that's what I said. They had to infer from the fact that hemoglobins exist in virtually all kingdoms that it somehow indicates the conclusion that they had inferred from the beginning. Welcome to inferential science. You, too, can be a scientist, just by starting with your conclusion and then magically reaching that conclusion


    Nope. It says exactly the opposite:
    Alignment of amino acid sequences is informative for the phylogenetic relationships among the hemoglobins in bacteria, fungi, protists, plants and animals.
    That's SOOOOOOO informative. Thank you, Barb!


    Rather, it says that God does not need to "design" as limited creatures must do; He creates, being omnipotent and omniscient. To my thinking a God that powerful and wise is far more impressive than some little godling who must figure it out one at a time, designing a tree here and a wasp there.
    Are you saying God creates WITHOUT designing? Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!


    It doesn't say that they reproduce after their kind. It says that the earth brought forth living things, and they were created according to their kind. But it doesn't say how this happened. The idea of a "designer", removes an all-powerful God from the picture and submits something that IDers admit "might be a space alien."
    You mean like this: [Gen 1:11-12 KJV] 11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

    But read back what you wrote there--that they were created according to their kind. They were created different kinds, they weren't created a single kind that then produced all the other kinds. The sea brought forth some of the kinds (fish and birds), and the earth brought forth others. If they all came from the same source, why does the bible give two sources? And how can the sea bring forth birds, when scientists are so confident that birds came from land animals?? Your narrative is falling apart. It has no consistency. It evolves to fit the discussion, just as the language has to evolve to get a different meaning from the words than was ever in the minds of the writers.


    Would have. But as you see, even Darwin attributed creation to God. No scientist I ever read did research trying to prove there is no God.
    They knew they didn't need to, since they had already decided to conclude there is no God. (Saves a bunch of time and research money to jump right to the conclusion!)


    That's the rub, isn't it? Science, by its methodology, can't say anything about the supernatural.

    But scientists can. Hence, Darwin's belief that God created the first living things.
    Science doesn't talk. Scientists talk. They interpret what they see based on presuppositions, like we all do. Only some presuppositions are more equal than others.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Barbarian
    replied
    Originally posted by Derf View Post
    Usually "several" means more than two.

    But even those two are questionable:

    If you read the text you posted here, it says that hemoglobin is different enough between creatures that it doesn't follow single-ancestry expectations.
    Well, let's take a look...

    "Alignment of amino acid sequences is informative for the phylogenetic relationships among the hemoglobins in bacteria, fungi, protists, plants and animals."

    It says quite clearly that the amino acid sequences in hemoglobin indicates the evolutionary relationships of hemooglobins in bacteria, fungi, protists, plants, and animals. Seems pretty clear to me.

    What it says is that the non-coding DNA strands (that don't function to produce proteins like hemoglobin)that serve as inducers of hypoxic activation don't appear to show phylogenies. Which is why they said at the beginning:

    "The discovery of hemoglobins in virtually all kingdoms of organisms has shown (1) that the ancestral gene for hemoglobin is ancient, and (2) that hemoglobins can serve additional functions besides transport of oxygen between tissues, ranging from intracellular oxygen transport to catalysis of redox reactions. These different functions of the hemoglobins illustrate the acquisition of new roles by a pre-existing structural gene, which requires changes not only in the coding regions but also in the regulatory elements of the genes."


    In other words, for multiple different animal types, hemoglobin DID appear out of nowhere.
    Nope. It says exactly the opposite:
    Alignment of amino acid sequences is informative for the phylogenetic relationships among the hemoglobins in bacteria, fungi, protists, plants and animals.

    Evolutionary theory, even if Darwin's feeble attempt to retain some support from Christians is genuine, still gives glory to the creature over the creator, because it says God isn't needed to design wonderfully designed creatures.
    Rather, it says that God does not need to "design" as limited creatures must do; He creates, being omnipotent and omniscient. To my thinking a God that powerful and wise is far more impressive than some little godling who must figure it out one at a time, designing a tree here and a wasp there.

    And it completely turns on its head the Genesis' contention that creatures reproduce after their kind.
    It doesn't say that they reproduce after their kind. It says that the earth brought forth living things, and they were created according to their kind. But it doesn't say how this happened. The idea of a "designer", removes an all-powerful God from the picture and submits something that IDers admit "might be a space alien."

    Grandeur it might seem to someone fixated on removing God from the picture, but it's a hopeless grandeur--all vanity.

    Yes. For me, a little "designer" will never be an adequate replacement for the Creator.

    And it has wasted much scientific thought and energy on a pursuit to show God isn't needed.
    Would have. But as you see, even Darwin attributed creation to God. No scientist I ever read did research trying to prove there is no God.

    Much more good science could have been done by acknowledging God's creative prowess and studying it to find out how it works.
    That's the rub, isn't it? Science, by its methodology, can't say anything about the supernatural.

    But scientists can. Hence, Darwin's belief that God created the first living things.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Barbarian
    replied
    Originally posted by ffreeloader View Post
    LOL. So you continue to use fallacies. You lift a single sentence out a paragraph and then pretend it was all that was said.
    I merely addressed the falsehood. Although it would be impossible for the entire geologic column to exist everywhere, and it's remarkable that there are places where deposition exceeded erosion for every period in Earth's history, there are some places where that was the case.

    The meaning that I get out of that sentence, taken within it's context, is this: The geologic column, that geologists pretend is complete worldwide
    That's the second dishonesty. No geologist ever said that. If you thought about it for a moment, you'd probably figure out why that couldn't possibly happen.

    That it is an accurate model of the entire earth's crust is an idea found only in creationist mirepresentations.

    Your article on hemoglobin is highly misleading for it runs into the problem, immediately, of irreducible complexity.
    You're wrong for two reasons. First, irreducibly complexity can evolve. Second, hemoglobin isn't irreducibly complex. Let's look at your beliefs for a bit...

    For hemoglobin to work reliably, or even at all, the information that produces the proteins has to come from dna
    No. If you synthesized hemoglobin, it would still work.

    and that dna has to be perfectly formed for the organism to live, and to create the hemoglobin.
    No. There are different kinds of hemoglobin, each of which works well enough for the organisms in which it exists. So it can't be irreducibly complex, since many different changes in hemoglobin do not destroy its function.

    Hemoglobin cannot exist without the dna information that tells the organism what proteins are needed and in what exact sequence.
    There would have to be organisms before hemoglobin. Turns out, that's what happened. Hemoglobin didn't evolve until long after life originated on Earth. No problem there, either.

    And if you want to suppose that God just poofed the first living things into existence, that would be fine with evolutionary theory, which doesn't say how life got started. Darwin, for example, just supposed that God created the first living things.

    This was actually a very poor attempt at misdirection
    Yes, it was, but I've debunked it for you.

    as it is very apparent that you can't deal with the odds involved in the production of, and functioning of, hemoglobin in the blood.
    If you were wondering, the odds are 1.0. Would you like me to show you?

    Evolution, as a whole, has that problem. DNA must exist complete before life forms can exist and reproduce themselves.
    See above. If you'd prefer the poofing scenario, instead of the earth bringing forth life, that's perfectly consistent with evolutionary theory.

    And all forms of dna modification that happen by chance destroy dna information.
    You don't seem to know what "information" is. In fact, all new mutations increase information in a population. Would you like me to show you?

    There is no known addition of dna information is changes found in life forms.
    Let's take a really simple case and see what you can do with it. Suppose there's a gene in a population that only has two alleles, each of them with a frequency of 0.5. Then suppose a new mutation occurs, eventually, each allele has a frequency of 0.333... What was the information before and after the mutation? Hint: numbers will be required.

    Let's take the instance that you evolutionists like to crow about and claim it supports evolution: that bacteria become immune to drugs. Oh, see they are modifying themselves and no longer can be killed by drugs. LOL. Yeah, they have been modified and no longer die from the drugs created to kill them, but was it from destruction of dna information or the addition of dna information?
    Depends on the mode of protection. Suppose a critical step in some process of the bacterium, was being prevented by the antibiotic. One way to gain immunity would be to change the process so that critical step was no longer needed. In that case, fitness would be achieved by a loss of information.

    But what if instead, the bacterium had a mutation producing a new substance that inactivated the antibiotic? Then an addition to information would have occured. So, it depends.

    It is demonstrably from the destruction of dna information for the drugs are designed to attach to specific parts of the cellular structure and because the dna has been been partially destroyed the specific cellular structures for the drugs to attach to are no longer created.
    See above. Evolution can involve an increase in information, or a decrease information. There are cases of both in antibiotic resistance.

    It's not an argument agtainst evolution, but creationists go ahead and make the claim anyway, some of them knowing all the time it is a lie. Others merely repeat the lies, not knowing anything about it.

    Your claim that evolution isn't about the beginnings of life is disingenous at it's very best, and a flat out lie otherwise.
    It's just a fact. If God had poofed the first living things into existence, instead of the earth bringing them forth, evolution would still work as it does.

    If you doubt this, show me anything in Darwin's theory, or in the Modern Synthesis that says anything about the origin of life. All there is, is Darwin's suggestion that God just created the first living things.

    One last thing before I forget it. I want you to show me the observation of one of the most foundational aspects of evolution: that of one species arising out of another one. Oh, I've seen theories addressing it, but zero fossil evidence has ever been found.
    Most creationists gave up on that a long time ago. "Answers in Genesis" now freely admits the fact of speciation. So does the Institute for Creation Research. Indeed, the ICR now endorses Woodmorappe's claim that new species, genera, and even families evolve. They just say "that's not real evolution."

    Might be, you should read up on what creationists say, too. The first observed speciation was O. gigas from O. lamarckania by a polyploidy event.

    But there's also:
    Dobzhansky, T. (1935). Drosophila miranda, a new species. Genetics 20: 377--391.

    All "observation" of that type has been proven fraudulent.
    Your fellow creationists disagree with you.

    As creationists, we must frequently remind detractors that we do not deny that species vary, change, and even appear over time. The biodiversity represented in the 8.7 million or so species in the world is a testament, not to random chance processes, but to the genetic variability and potential for diversification within the created kinds.
    https://answersingenesis.org/natural...on/speciation/


    Another form of fraudulent "observation" is the geologic column which is missing, as a whole, in more than 99% of the earth's crust.
    Of course, if you were right, it wouldn't be found anywhere. If you think about it for a bit, I'm sure you'd realize why it would be so rare for anyplace on Earth to have continuously have more deposition than erosion over several billion years.

    And still a third piece of fraudulent "observation" is the circular reasoning that even scientists admit happens in their usage of the fossil record and evolutionary theory.
    Your fellow YE creationist disagrees with you on that, too:

    Of Darwinism’s four stratomorphic intermediate expectations, that of the commonness of inter-specific stratomorphic intermediates has been the most disappointing for classical Darwinists. The current lack of any certain inter-specific stratomorphic intermediates has, of course, led to the development and increased acceptance of punctuated equilibrium theory. Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
    Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

    Your three objections are foundational to belief in creationism and all three legs are destroyed because of a lack of scriptural or scientific support.

    Oh, and by the way, I am a YEC. I make no scientific arguments one way or the other for it.
    That's an honest position. As Kurt Wise says, there is very good evidence for common descent, but he prefers his interpretation of Genesis. Nothing dishonest about that.

    The evidence says you're wrong, but you prefer to put your faith in your understanding of scripture. Can't disparage that.

    Leave a comment:


  • ffreeloader
    replied
    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    Let's take a look...he wrote:

    The entire column, composed of complete strata systems, exists only in the diagrams drawn by geologists.

    This is quite false, of course. He contradicted himself, yes. But as you now realize, the entire geological column exists in more places than mentioned. Which is pretty remarkable, when you realize how unlikely it is that there was more deposition than erosion in those areas over every geological period.

    If your guy was right, it wouldn't exist anywhere. I was merely pointing out that he was wrong to say that the geological column exists only in geologists' charts.



    No, it's a simple falsehood. What he wrote is false.

    YECs tend to rely a lot on fallacious reasoning to support their theory. You've created two in this thread alone and I've pointed out the reliance on fallacious reasoning of using the theory to read the fossil evidence and then saying fossil evidence supports the theory.
    And now you've given us an excellent example of a strawman. In fact, the numerous transitional series were predicted by evolutionary theory long before they were discovered, confirming the theory. Even honest YECs admit this:

    Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
    YEC Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

    Wise candidly admits he prefers his reading of Genesis to the evidence. But he's honest enough to admit that the fossil records is very good evidence for "macroevolutionary theory."



    See above. You're a little confused.



    Everyone is ignorant of something. This is just one of those things you don't know much about. As Wise points out, you really don't understand the fossil evidence.



    Yep. You can observe it almost everywhere in living things. It seems that you've confused "evolution" with the agency of evolution (natural selection), and perhaps with the consequences of evolution (common descent). Perhaps we could clear that up if you told us what you think the scientific definition of "evolution" is. What do you think it is?



    Notice that an honest and informed YEC admits that the hominid series is very good evidence for evolution. He knows what you don't.



    Since it's directly observed to happen, the odds against it being true are 0.000. I'm guessing you're thinking instead of the origin of life, which most YECs conflate with evolutionary theory.



    Since 93.5 percent of all internet statistics are just made up from imagination, let's see your calculations.

    There's several things wrong with you guess:

    1. Hemoglobin didn't appear out of nowhere.

    Hemoglobins from bacteria to man: evolution of different patterns of gene expression.
    R Hardison
    Journal of Experimental Biology 1998 201: 1099-1117
    The discovery of hemoglobins in virtually all kingdoms of organisms has shown (1) that the ancestral gene for hemoglobin is ancient, and (2) that hemoglobins can serve additional functions besides transport of oxygen between tissues, ranging from intracellular oxygen transport to catalysis of redox reactions. These different functions of the hemoglobins illustrate the acquisition of new roles by a pre-existing structural gene, which requires changes not only in the coding regions but also in the regulatory elements of the genes. The evolution of different regulated functions within an ancient gene family allows an examination of the types of biosequence data that are informative for various types of issues. Alignment of amino acid sequences is informative for the phylogenetic relationships among the hemoglobins in bacteria, fungi, protists, plants and animals. Although many of these diverse hemoglobins are induced by low oxygen concentrations, to date none of the molecular mechanisms for their hypoxic induction shows common regulatory proteins; hence, a search for matches in non-coding DNA sequences would not be expected to be fruitful. Indeed, alignments of non-coding DNA sequences do not reveal significant matches even between mammalian alpha- and beta-globin gene clusters, which diverged approximately 450 million years ago and are still expressed in a coordinated and balanced manner. They are in very different genomic contexts that show pronounced differences in regulatory mechanisms. The alpha-globin gene is in constitutively active chromatin and is encompassed by a CpG island, which is a dominant determinant of its regulation, whereas the beta-globin gene is in A+T-rich genomic DNA. Non-coding sequence matches are not seen between avian and mammalian beta-globin gene clusters, which diverged approximately 250 million years ago, despite the fact that regulation of both gene clusters requires tissue-specific activation of a chromatin domain regulated by a locus control region. The cis-regulatory sequences needed for domain opening and enhancement do show common binding sites for transcription factors. In contrast, alignments of non-coding sequences from species representing multiple eutherian mammalian orders, some of which diverged as long as 135 million years ago, are reliable predictors of novel cis-regulatory elements, both proximal and distal to the genes. Examples include a potential target for the hematopoietic transcription factor TAL1.


    2. As I said, evolutionary theory isn't about the way life began. Darwin, for example, thought that God just created the first living things:

    There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
    Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species, 1878
    LOL. So you continue to use fallacies. You lift a single sentence out a paragraph and then pretend it was all that was said. The meaning that I get out of that sentence, taken within it's context, is this: The geologic column, that geologists pretend is complete worldwide and reliably upholds the evolutionary theories, cannot be found as complete world wide. It fact, it is as the author says, it's missing in the vast majority of the earth's surface. That it is an accurate model of the entire earth's crust is an idea found only in geologist's diagrams. In real life it is missing components and, or actually inverted, in more than 99% of the earth's surface. but, since you can't controvert the author's statements of fact you want to nitpick the wording of one sentence and then claim he is lying and not to be believed. I've seen your attempts at obfuscation many times before. They just don't work

    Your article on hemoglobin is highly misleading for it runs into the problem, immediately, of irreducible complexity. For hemoglobin to work reliably, or even at all, the information that produces the proteins has to come from dna, and that dna has to be perfectly formed for the organism to live, and to create the hemoglobin. Hemoglobin cannot exist without the dna information that tells the organism what proteins are needed and in what exact sequence. This was actually a very poor attempt at misdirection as it is very apparent that you can't deal with the odds involved in the production of, and functioning of, hemoglobin in the blood.

    Evolution, as a whole, has that problem. DNA must exist complete before life forms can exist and reproduce themselves. And all forms of dna modification that happen by chance destroy dna information. There is no known addition of dna information is changes found in life forms. Let's take the instance that you evolutionists like to crow about and claim it supports evolution: that bacteria become immune to drugs. Oh, see they are modifying themselves and no longer can be killed by drugs. LOL. Yeah, they have been modified and no longer die from the drugs created to kill them, but was it from destruction of dna information or the addition of dna information? It is demonstrably from the destruction of dna information for the drugs are designed to attach to specific parts of the cellular structure and because the dna has been been partially destroyed the specific cellular structures for the drugs to attach to are no longer created. It's not an argument for evolution, but actually an argument against evolution. But evolutionists go ahead and make the claim anyway, knowing all the time it is a lie.

    Your claim that evolution isn't about the beginnings of life is disingenous at it's very best, and a flat out lie otherwise.

    Here's a link from evolution.berkley.edu on the origins of life. https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evoli...origsoflife_03 The title of the short article is "where did life originate?" Evolutionists pondering on where life originated and doing that under the overall title of Understanding Evolution.

    https://www.universetoday.com/104336...id-life-begin/ Evolutionists pondering how evolution produced life.

    https://www.livescience.com/13363-7-...igin-life.html Once again, evolutionists pondering how evolution brought life into existence.

    https://science.nasa.gov/solar-syste...e-solar-system This is a link from NASA on the evolutionary beginnings of life.

    One last thing before I forget it. I want you to show me the observation of one of the most foundational aspects of evolution: that of one species arising out of another one. Oh, I've seen theories addressing it, but zero fossil evidence has ever been found. Until you can provide that type of "observation" there is no real evidence for evolution. All "observation" of that type has been proven fraudulent. Another form of fraudulent "observation" is the geologic column which is missing, as a whole, in more than 99% of the earth's crust. And still a third piece of fraudulent "observation" is the circular reasoning that even scientists admit happens in their usage of the fossil record and evolutionary theory. These three legs are foundational to belief in evolution and all three legs are destroyed lack of legitimate scientic evidence.

    Oh, and by the way, I am a YEC. I make no scientific arguments one way or the other for it. I take it by faith from the Bible. I take the Genesis account of creation as literal. So, I use no logical fallacies to support my beliefs for I plainly say it is an article of faith in the God I serve and trust with my life. I'm not like you who must point away from and try to obscure my faith in something which the odds say is so far from evolution being possible that it must be taken and believed in by faith. I don't have faith that can exist against the kind of odds that you evolutionists believe were overcome.

    Leave a comment:


  • ffreeloader
    replied
    Originally posted by Derf View Post
    Usually "several" means more than two.

    But even those two are questionable:

    If you read the text you posted here, it says that hemoglobin is different enough between creatures that it doesn't follow single-ancestry expectations. In other words, for multiple different animal types, hemoglobin DID appear out of nowhere. That's exactly what your paragraph is saying. And the only effort the author makes to dispel such a conclusion is to arbitrarily throw in millions of years to make it seem like there's a valid reason for the differences he can't explain.


    Evolutionary theory, even if Darwin's feeble attempt to retain some support from Christians is genuine, still gives glory to the creature over the creator, because it says God isn't needed to design wonderfully designed creatures. And it completely turns on its head the Genesis' contention that creatures reproduce after their kind. Grandeur it might seem to someone fixated on removing God from the picture, but it's a hopeless grandeur--all vanity.

    And it has wasted much scientific thought and energy on a pursuit to show God isn't needed. Much more good science could have been done by acknowledging God's creative prowess and studying it to find out how it works.
    NIce post, Derf.

    Leave a comment:


  • Derf
    replied
    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    There's several things wrong with you guess:
    Usually "several" means more than two.

    But even those two are questionable:
    1. Hemoglobin didn't appear out of nowhere.

    Hemoglobins from bacteria to man: evolution of different patterns of gene expression.
    R Hardison
    Journal of Experimental Biology 1998 201: 1099-1117
    The discovery of hemoglobins in virtually all kingdoms of organisms has shown (1) that the ancestral gene for hemoglobin is ancient, and (2) that hemoglobins can serve additional functions besides transport of oxygen between tissues, ranging from intracellular oxygen transport to catalysis of redox reactions. These different functions of the hemoglobins illustrate the acquisition of new roles by a pre-existing structural gene, which requires changes not only in the coding regions but also in the regulatory elements of the genes. The evolution of different regulated functions within an ancient gene family allows an examination of the types of biosequence data that are informative for various types of issues. Alignment of amino acid sequences is informative for the phylogenetic relationships among the hemoglobins in bacteria, fungi, protists, plants and animals. Although many of these diverse hemoglobins are induced by low oxygen concentrations, to date none of the molecular mechanisms for their hypoxic induction shows common regulatory proteins; hence, a search for matches in non-coding DNA sequences would not be expected to be fruitful. Indeed, alignments of non-coding DNA sequences do not reveal significant matches even between mammalian alpha- and beta-globin gene clusters, which diverged approximately 450 million years ago and are still expressed in a coordinated and balanced manner. They are in very different genomic contexts that show pronounced differences in regulatory mechanisms. The alpha-globin gene is in constitutively active chromatin and is encompassed by a CpG island, which is a dominant determinant of its regulation, whereas the beta-globin gene is in A+T-rich genomic DNA. Non-coding sequence matches are not seen between avian and mammalian beta-globin gene clusters, which diverged approximately 250 million years ago, despite the fact that regulation of both gene clusters requires tissue-specific activation of a chromatin domain regulated by a locus control region. The cis-regulatory sequences needed for domain opening and enhancement do show common binding sites for transcription factors. In contrast, alignments of non-coding sequences from species representing multiple eutherian mammalian orders, some of which diverged as long as 135 million years ago, are reliable predictors of novel cis-regulatory elements, both proximal and distal to the genes. Examples include a potential target for the hematopoietic transcription factor TAL1.
    If you read the text you posted here, it says that hemoglobin is different enough between creatures that it doesn't follow single-ancestry expectations. In other words, for multiple different animal types, hemoglobin DID appear out of nowhere. That's exactly what your paragraph is saying. And the only effort the author makes to dispel such a conclusion is to arbitrarily throw in millions of years to make it seem like there's a valid reason for the differences he can't explain.

    2. As I said, evolutionary theory isn't about the way life began. Darwin, for example, thought that God just created the first living things:

    There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
    Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species, 1878
    Evolutionary theory, even if Darwin's feeble attempt to retain some support from Christians is genuine, still gives glory to the creature over the creator, because it says God isn't needed to design wonderfully designed creatures. And it completely turns on its head the Genesis' contention that creatures reproduce after their kind. Grandeur it might seem to someone fixated on removing God from the picture, but it's a hopeless grandeur--all vanity.

    And it has wasted much scientific thought and energy on a pursuit to show God isn't needed. Much more good science could have been done by acknowledging God's creative prowess and studying it to find out how it works.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Barbarian
    replied
    Originally posted by ffreeloader View Post
    You just can't help yourself. You just gotta do it again. I'm talking about your reliance on logical fallacies. You lift one sentence out of the context of the entire paragraph, where by the way, the author noted that there were three geographic areas where the geologic column does actually exist, and pretend that sentence is all that was said.
    Let's take a look...he wrote:

    The entire column, composed of complete strata systems, exists only in the diagrams drawn by geologists.

    This is quite false, of course. He contradicted himself, yes. But as you now realize, the entire geological column exists in more places than mentioned. Which is pretty remarkable, when you realize how unlikely it is that there was more deposition than erosion in those areas over every geological period.

    If your guy was right, it wouldn't exist anywhere. I was merely pointing out that he was wrong to say that the geological column exists only in geologists' charts.

    That's what's known as the straw man fallacy.
    No, it's a simple falsehood. What he wrote is false.

    YECs tend to rely a lot on fallacious reasoning to support their theory. You've created two in this thread alone and I've pointed out the reliance on fallacious reasoning of using the theory to read the fossil evidence and then saying fossil evidence supports the theory.[/quote]

    And now you've given us an excellent example of a strawman. In fact, the numerous transitional series were predicted by evolutionary theory long before they were discovered, confirming the theory. Even honest YECs admit this:

    Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
    YEC Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

    Wise candidly admits he prefers his reading of Genesis to the evidence. But he's honest enough to admit that the fossil records is very good evidence for "macroevolutionary theory."

    You'll never convince anyone you're correct by using logical fallacies for logical fallacies are just cleverly constructed lies.
    See above. You're a little confused.

    Also, I have to laugh at your request for me to explain the theory you support using logical falllacies. You must think I'm some ignorant hick that just fell of the turnip wagon.
    Everyone is ignorant of something. This is just one of those things you don't know much about. As Wise points out, you really don't understand the fossil evidence.

    Oh, and your "directly observed" evidence?
    Yep. You can observe it almost everywhere in living things. It seems that you've confused "evolution" with the agency of evolution (natural selection), and perhaps with the consequences of evolution (common descent). Perhaps we could clear that up if you told us what you think the scientific definition of "evolution" is. What do you think it is?

    And the rest of the frauds perpetrated by evolutionists because they can't fill in the missing links?
    Notice that an honest and informed YEC admits that the hominid series is very good evidence for evolution. He knows what you don't.

    How about the odds against evolution being true?
    Since it's directly observed to happen, the odds against it being true are 0.000. I'm guessing you're thinking instead of the origin of life, which most YECs conflate with evolutionary theory.

    Hemoglobin has an protein sequence that is 287 amino acids long. Having just one of them out of sequence results in sickle cell anemia. That means that protein, one of a huge number of proteins in the human body, had to come together perfectly the very first time otherwise the person died for without modern medical treatments sickle cell anemia is fatal. And then look at all the proteins that life requires. They had to come together perfectly the very first time. The odds against that? Coffin, from the above quote, figured the odds for a cell 1/10 the size of the smallest cell known to scientists coming together, by chance, perfectly so the organism would have the necessary molecules, amino acids, and proteins to support life is 1 followed by 340 million zeros. That number is greater than the number of molecules in the universe. And remember the way odds work. One random attempt does not increase the odds of the next random attempt. The odds remain at 1 followed by 340 million zeros.
    Since 93.5 percent of all internet statistics are just made up from imagination, let's see your calculations.

    There's several things wrong with you guess:

    1. Hemoglobin didn't appear out of nowhere.

    Hemoglobins from bacteria to man: evolution of different patterns of gene expression.
    R Hardison
    Journal of Experimental Biology 1998 201: 1099-1117
    The discovery of hemoglobins in virtually all kingdoms of organisms has shown (1) that the ancestral gene for hemoglobin is ancient, and (2) that hemoglobins can serve additional functions besides transport of oxygen between tissues, ranging from intracellular oxygen transport to catalysis of redox reactions. These different functions of the hemoglobins illustrate the acquisition of new roles by a pre-existing structural gene, which requires changes not only in the coding regions but also in the regulatory elements of the genes. The evolution of different regulated functions within an ancient gene family allows an examination of the types of biosequence data that are informative for various types of issues. Alignment of amino acid sequences is informative for the phylogenetic relationships among the hemoglobins in bacteria, fungi, protists, plants and animals. Although many of these diverse hemoglobins are induced by low oxygen concentrations, to date none of the molecular mechanisms for their hypoxic induction shows common regulatory proteins; hence, a search for matches in non-coding DNA sequences would not be expected to be fruitful. Indeed, alignments of non-coding DNA sequences do not reveal significant matches even between mammalian alpha- and beta-globin gene clusters, which diverged approximately 450 million years ago and are still expressed in a coordinated and balanced manner. They are in very different genomic contexts that show pronounced differences in regulatory mechanisms. The alpha-globin gene is in constitutively active chromatin and is encompassed by a CpG island, which is a dominant determinant of its regulation, whereas the beta-globin gene is in A+T-rich genomic DNA. Non-coding sequence matches are not seen between avian and mammalian beta-globin gene clusters, which diverged approximately 250 million years ago, despite the fact that regulation of both gene clusters requires tissue-specific activation of a chromatin domain regulated by a locus control region. The cis-regulatory sequences needed for domain opening and enhancement do show common binding sites for transcription factors. In contrast, alignments of non-coding sequences from species representing multiple eutherian mammalian orders, some of which diverged as long as 135 million years ago, are reliable predictors of novel cis-regulatory elements, both proximal and distal to the genes. Examples include a potential target for the hematopoietic transcription factor TAL1.


    2. As I said, evolutionary theory isn't about the way life began. Darwin, for example, thought that God just created the first living things:

    There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
    Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species, 1878

    Leave a comment:


  • ffreeloader
    replied
    Originally posted by ok doser View Post
    i learned from your post - keep up the good work!
    Thanks. I try to present as much evidence as this type of communication allows. If you like my posts you would love the book I am taking this information out of: Tornado in a Junkyard by James Perloff. You can get a used copy for less than $10 from thriftbooks.com . If you buy $10.01, or more, of books the shipping is free. I buy quite a few books from there and they carry several of James Perloff's books. His books Shadows of Power and Truth is a Lonely Warrior on the Council on Foreign Relations are excellent books for understanding what has been happening to the US for the last 100+ years and why it has been happening. They're a good way to really begin to understand the foundations of the deep state. They are as well-documented as Tornado in a Junkyard.

    Leave a comment:


  • ok doser
    replied
    Originally posted by ffreeloader View Post
    Yeah, you may be right, but what I post isn't really for him at all as I know he will ignore it and keep on with his same line of baloney. I post it for those out there who read and haven't actually made up their mind as yet as to what is true. I just try to give them both sides of the question and point out the fallacies inherent in evolution. It's up to them what they will believe, but the honest in heart will turn away from evolution as they will follow truth rather than error.
    i learned from your post - keep up the good work!

    Leave a comment:


  • ffreeloader
    replied
    Originally posted by Stripe View Post
    He knows he will get called on them; he just counts on being able to keep peddling nonsense. I guess he gets a kick out of it.
    Yeah, you may be right, but what I post isn't really for him at all as I know he will ignore it and keep on with his same line of baloney. I post it for those out there who read and haven't actually made up their mind as yet as to what is true. I just try to give them both sides of the question and point out the fallacies inherent in evolution. It's up to them what they will believe, but the honest in heart will turn away from evolution as they will follow truth rather than error.

    Leave a comment:


  • ok doser
    replied
    he's a troll

    trolls gotta troll

    Leave a comment:


  • Stripe
    replied
    Originally posted by ffreeloader View Post
    Did you think no one would recognize it and call you on your lack of sound reasoning?
    He knows he will get called on them; he just counts on being able to keep peddling nonsense. I guess he gets a kick out of it.

    Leave a comment:


  • ffreeloader
    replied
    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    Since it's directly observed, there really isn't much chance of it being "unscientific." I suppose you don't actually know what "evolution" is. Most creationists confuse the theory of evolution, with phenomenon of evolution, with the consequences of evolution.

    To get you started, how about giving us a testable definition of "evolution" and tell us about the five points of Darwinian theory, and how that was changed by the modern synthesis?

    Then we can deal with the errors in your post. Here's one to start:



    North Dakota, for example:
    The W. H. Hunt Trust Estate Larson #1 will in Section 10 Township 148 N Range 101 W was drilled to 15,064 feet deep. This well was drilled just west of the outcrop of the Golden Valley formation and begins in the Tertiary Fort Union Formation. The various horizons described above were encountered at the following depths (Fm=formation; Grp=Group; Lm=Limestone):

    Tertiary Ft. Union Fm ..........................100 feet
    Cretaceous Greenhorn Fm .......................4910 feet
    Cretaceous Mowry Fm........................... 5370 feet
    Cretaceous Inyan Kara Fm.......................5790 feet
    Jurassic Rierdon Fm............................6690 feet
    Triassic Spearfish Fm..........................7325 feet
    Permian Opeche Fm..............................7740 feet
    Pennsylvanian Amsden Fm........................7990 feet
    Pennsylvanian Tyler Fm.........................8245 feet
    Mississippian Otter Fm.........................8440 feet
    Mississippian Kibbey Lm........................8780 feet
    Mississippian Charles Fm.......................8945 feet
    Mississippian Mission Canyon Fm................9775 feet
    Mississippian Lodgepole Fm....................10255 feet
    Devonian Bakken Fm............................11085 feet
    Devonian Birdbear Fm..........................11340 feet
    Devonian Duperow Fm...........................11422 feet
    Devonian Souris River Fm......................11832 feet
    Devonian Dawson Bay Fm........................12089 feet
    Devonian Prairie Fm...........................12180 feet
    Devonian Winnipegosis Grp.....................12310 feet
    Silurian Interlake Fm.........................12539 feet
    Ordovician Stonewall Fm.......................13250 feet
    Ordovician Red River Dolomite.................13630 feet
    Ordovician Winnipeg Grp.......................14210 feet
    Ordovician Black Island Fm....................14355 feet
    Cambrian Deadwood Fm..........................14445 feet
    Precambrian...................................1494 5 feet


    When you get those answers, we can go on.
    You just can't help yourself. You just gotta do it again. I'm talking about your reliance on logical fallacies. You lift one sentence out of the context of the entire paragraph, where by the way, the author noted that there were three geographic areas where the geologic column does actually exist, and pretend that sentence is all that was said. That's what's known as the straw man fallacy. You know it, yet create it anyway. Did you think no one would recognize it and call you on your lack of sound reasoning?

    It's just like the rest of my post showed. Evolutionists tend to rely a lot on fallacious reasoning to support their theory. You've created two in this thread alone and I've pointed out the reliance on fallacious reasoning of using the theory to read the fossil evidence and then saying fossil evidence supports the theory. You'll never convince anyone you're correct by using logical fallacies for logical fallacies are just cleverly constructed lies.

    Also, I have to laugh at your request for me to explain the theory you support using logical falllacies. You must think I'm some ignorant hick that just fell of the turnip wagon. If the theory was valid no one would be using logical fallacies to make it sound good. But, evolutionists are forced into it because the theory just doesn't hold water. Oh, and your "directly observed" evidence? Like Lucy? Like the Piltdown man? And the rest of the frauds perpetrated by evolutionists because they can't fill in the missing links? How about the odds against evolution being true? I will quote Francis Crick who won the Nobel Prize for his part in determining the DNA sequence. He is speaking, in the following quote about proteins and how complex their structure is
    If a particular amino acid sequence was selected by chance, how rare an event would this be? .... Suppose the chain is about two hundred amino acids long: this is, if anything, rather less than the average length proteins of all types. Since we have just twenty possibilities at each place, the number of possibilities is twenty multiplied by itself some two hundred times. This is conveniently written 20 to the 200th power and is approximately equal to 10 to the 260th power, that is a 1 followed by 260 zeros. That number is quite beyond our everyday comprehension.... The great majority of sequnces can never have been synthesized at all. Harold G. Coffin Origin by Design page 376
    Hemoglobin has an protein sequence that is 287 amino acids long. Having just one of them out of sequence results in sickle cell anemia. That means that protein, one of a huge number of proteins in the human body, had to come together perfectly the very first time otherwise the person died for without modern medical treatments sickle cell anemia is fatal. And then look at all the proteins that life requires. They had to come together perfectly the very first time. The odds against that? Coffin, from the above quote, figured the odds for a cell 1/10 the size of the smallest cell known to scientists coming together, by chance, perfectly so the organism would have the necessary molecules, amino acids, and proteins to support life is 1 followed by 340 million zeros. That number is greater than the number of molecules in the universe. And remember the way odds work. One random attempt does not increase the odds of the next random attempt. The odds remain at 1 followed by 340 million zeros.

    Leave a comment:


  • Right Divider
    replied
    Originally posted by Stripe View Post
    Evolution is the idea that all life is descended from a universal common ancestor by means of random mutations and natural selection.
    Don't forget about the part where life came from non-life by some unknown and miraculous event.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stripe
    replied
    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    [Evolution is] directly observed.


    I suppose you don't actually know what "evolution" is.
    Evolution is the idea that all life is descended from a universal common ancestor by means of random mutations and natural selection.

    It is Darwinists who refuse to stick to this definition.

    The theory of evolution, [the] phenomenon of evolution ... the consequences of evolution.
    See.

    When you get those answers, we can go on.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X