Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Biological Taxonomy - Kinds vs. Species (Linnaean taxonomy)

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

  • Originally posted by Stuu
    I am a non-biblical fan of science who is surprised by how well I can confirm the wellness of my existence.
    Glad you are well!
    Originally posted by Stuu
    Have you ever observed a perfect genome
    Of course not... We all have genomes corrupted by several thousand years of mutations. Genetic load is increasing. As geneticist JF Crow said our stone age ancestors would have had greater fitness than ourselves. Secularists call it a paradox, because the evidence is inconsistent with their beliefs. (Relaxed selection doesn't solve their problem)
    Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
      Thanks for confirming that you have no observational evidence of the "single universal common ancestor"
      Any time. We certainly don't have the kind of evidence that would tell us exactly how chemistry became biology that time.
      and therefore must make gross assumptions to support your belief system.
      There are a lot of really good models of abiogenesis, as it is called, with lots of observations of chemistry spontaneously doing the kinds of things we see in living cells. But there is not a proper scientific theory of abiogenesis in the same way that the theory of evolution by natural selection is a complete 'proved' explanation for how life came to have the variety of species it does.
      The original appearance of the first living species is very interesting but isn't really that important, in my opinion. It would probably become more important to me if creationists could give a testable explanation for how gods breathe into dirt to make humans, and so on. As for my belief system, it can be entirely changed by unambiguous evidence, and while that might not strike you as very reliable, I like the fact that I can claim to hold a worldview based on things that can reasonably be said to be true. Life from invisible beings breathing into dirt I would say cannot reasonably be said to be true.
      You have a lot of unproveable theories in your bag of tricks.
      'Provable', if you mean like in mathematics, isn't important to me. I could be wrong, just as you could be wrong. I can be proved wrong, which is always gives the possibility that I might learn something new, and indeed that has happened often.

      But science doesn't deal with 'proved', it deals with probability. But, in the common non-scientific sense of the word, evolution by natural selection is proved beyond any reasonable doubt. It can be disproved, but creationists have failed over the past 160 years to disprove it. Most claims of creationism that have been tested have been proved wrong. The earth is not young, the complexity turns out not to be irreducible, the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not prohibit evolution in any way, and so on.
      Nonsense. Science is your "god" and therefore MUST "explain all things".
      Well the problem there is that science has not explained all things. But science doesn't try to hide from its failings, whereas already you have told me that I am a silly materialist when I ask for a photograph of your god, which I consider to be you hiding your god from a serious consideration of the question.
      Your personal opinions don't have any weight with me and your hatred of God is duly noted.
      It would be pretty insane for me to hate your god, wouldn't it.
      Indeed, the Bible says that the created kinds reproduce after their kind. No great mystery there as we do observe this all the time. That's called science.
      Creation.com has this diagram of the evolutionary tree model:

      and this one, of the creationist orchard model.

      I imagine you would agree with the lower one, and it does match what you write above. Had you considered that the two diagrams are pretty much the same, but the first one just starts further back in time, meaning your only objection is to what is claimed to have happened in time before the point you believe creation happened?
      Once again, we observe reproduction along with "change" all of the time. This does NOT prove that all life has a single universal common ancestor.
      No, what proves it is patterns in things like endogenous retroviruses. If a stretch of virus DNA gets permanently stuck into the germ cell line (sperm or egg cells) then it can be passed on along with the rest of the DNA. If you find the same virus DNA in the same location in two different species (and find several viruses with the same pattern) then you can know they shared a common ancestor more recently than other species without the same number of identical viruses. Build up a database of which modern species have which viruses where and you get a tree that almost perfectly matches the tree of life you get from looking at fossils. That alone proves common ancestry beyond doubt.
      But I do understand that your religion requires one.
      According to the data I submitted in my country's last census, I don't have a religion, and I think that means legally I don't have a religion.
      Once again, we observe reproduction with distinct limitations and not the free-for-all that evolutionists dream of.
      Can you give an example of what you mean by this free-for-all?

      Stuart

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Stuu View Post
        The original appearance of the first living species is very interesting but isn't really that important, in my opinion. It would probably become more important to me if creationists could give a testable explanation for how gods breathe into dirt to make humans, and so on. As for my belief system, it can be entirely changed by unambiguous evidence, and while that might not strike you as very reliable, I like the fact that I can claim to hold a worldview based on things that can reasonably be said to be true. Life from invisible beings breathing into dirt I would say cannot reasonably be said to be true.
        When your worldview inherently excludes the supernatural (which cannot be explained by natural explanations), it therefore cannot argue either for or against such.

        It's the "against such" part that you seem to be forgetting here.

        The Bible is your unambiguous evidence that such a Being exists, and that He created man from the dust of the earth. And that he created everything that is natural in six days.

        Bu you can't accept that evidence, because it doesn't fit your worldview. And so the only rational thing you can do in your worldview is to try to rationalize it away, as if that does anything to make the problem go away that it is evidence of the supernatural, making up excuses that only distract from the problem that you have.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by 6days View Post
          We all have genomes corrupted by several thousand years of mutations. Genetic load is increasing. As geneticist JF Crow said our stone age ancestors would have had greater fitness than ourselves. Secularists call it a paradox, because the evidence is inconsistent with their beliefs. (Relaxed selection doesn't solve their problem)
          But you are saying there is no evidence for the 'perfect genome'. So how do you justify the claim that it's getting worse? You have the 'after' picture but not the 'before'.

          Stuart

          Comment


          • Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
            When your worldview inherently excludes the supernatural (which cannot be explained by natural explanations), it therefore cannot argue either for or against such.
            I don't think my worldview inherently excludes anything. You are presenting me with a word here, the 'supernatural'. You would have to say what that is before you can claim I have excluded it. Can you show that it is anything more than psychological effects within human brains?
            The Bible is your unambiguous evidence that such a Being exists, and that He created man from the dust of the earth. And that he created everything that is natural in six days.
            The problem with claiming the bible is evidence is that it is also evidence for a benign, caring god and for a brutal dictator of a god, and for a god that is deeply involved and a god that looks down with indifference, and there is no kind of arbitration. So it's not unambiguous. At least if it definitely said there was a caring, omnipotent god we could test that claim.
            Bu you can't accept that evidence, because it doesn't fit your worldview.
            Well it is not unambiguous, so it can't fit my worldview that the evidence you use to form your worldview should be unambiguous, that's true. But then I think you should take the same view. After all, what is the arbitration on whether the bible is an accurate historical account? If you want to use history to compare with the biblical account then the bible is wrong. The census of Quirinius happened in a different decade from the rule of Herod (as in the Herod meant by the gospels).

            If you know there is one thing wrong in scripture, what stops the whole thing coming under suspicion? you can't say it is unreasonable to conclude that stories of men walking after execution are not true, and that it's not true that a human can be born of one parent, or walk on the surface of water. Your response to that will seem like you are invoking magic. You must already know this is absurd.
            And so the only rational thing you can do in your worldview is to try to rationalize it away, as if that does anything to make the problem go away that it is evidence of the supernatural, making up excuses that only distract from the problem that you have.
            I don't think I have any problem here because I think what you call the supernatural is a psychological effect, and I think I have good reasons for believing that to be the case. The problem of evil is not a problem for me. The problem of losing ones faith is not a problem for me. The problem of having to give up responsibility for one's wrongdoing is not a problem for me.

            Stuart

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Stuu
              But you are saying there is no evidence for the 'perfect genome'
              I am saying science helps confirm the truth of the Genesis account. We have the evidence from genetics and the evidence from the Author of Life.
              Originally posted by Stuu
              So how do you justify that it's getting worse?
              Science..
              Genetic research.... Scripture.
              Genetic load is irreversibly increasing. It is impossible that selection can detect and remove the 70+ slightly deleterious mutations added to our genome every generation. Some geneticists have referred to this as the population bomb with a long fuse. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC33757/
              Originally posted by Stuu
              You have the 'after' picture but not the 'before'.
              We don't have the picture... We have the evidence.
              Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by 6days View Post
                I am saying science helps confirm the truth of the Genesis account. We have the evidence from genetics and the evidence from the Author of Life. Science.
                Genetic research.... Scripture.
                Blah blah blah. Assertions over and over. No evidence.

                Some geneticists have referred to this as the population bomb with a long fuse. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC33757/
                A 1997 article? An article based primarily on speculation since genome sequences were not readily available until at least the late 2000s?

                Regardless, yes mutations happen. This doesn't mean they are evidence of a once perfect genome. The author in the article you linked cites improved selection in the past to remove mutations. So, self defeating citation on your part.
                “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.



                - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Alate_One
                  Blah blah blah. Assertions over and over. (Re. Science helps confirm truth of the Genesis account) No evidence.
                  We all have the exact same evidence. "In six days God created the heavens and the Earth and everything in them"... That may be just an assertion to you. But, it is exciting times for Christians as science helps confirm the truth of God's word.
                  Originally posted by Alate_One
                  A 1997 article? An article based primarily on speculation since genome sequences were not readily available until at least the late 2000s?
                  The problem was well-known long before 1997.... And is still known in 2019. Modern geneticists are still proposing various hypothetical, and unrealistic solutions (as Crow did in '97 trying to solve the paradox with quasi truncation) trying to shoehorn evolutionary beliefs into the evidence.
                  Originally posted by Alate_One
                  Regardless, yes mutations happen. This doesn't mean they are evidence of a once perfect genome.
                  You choose not to accept it as evidence. God's word tells us that he is perfect, and that his works are perfect, but that his creation has been subjected to corruption. Genetics provides awesome evidence of the truth of scripture.
                  Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by 6days View Post
                    I am saying science helps confirm the truth of the Genesis account. We have the evidence from genetics and the evidence from the Author of Life. Science..
                    Genetic research.... Scripture.
                    Genetic load is irreversibly increasing. It is impossible that selection can detect and remove the 70+ slightly deleterious mutations added to our genome every generation. Some geneticists have referred to this as the population bomb with a long fuse. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC33757/
                    We don't have the picture... We have the evidence.
                    Where is the 'starting genome' then? The one you have compared with the current one?

                    Stuart

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Stuu View Post
                      Where is the 'starting genome' then? The one you have compared with the current one?

                      Stuart
                      You can't possibly be that stupid. So we know that you're just acting stupid.
                      All of my ancestors are human.
                      Originally posted by Squeaky
                      That explains why your an idiot.
                      Originally posted by God's Truth
                      Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
                      Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
                      (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

                      1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
                      (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

                      Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
                        You can't possibly be that stupid. So we know that you're just acting stupid.
                        Thanks for your reply. I would really like to hear from 6days on this one, after all it is his claim that he has failed to substantiate.

                        By the way, we have a genome from a human that lived 45,000 years ago. That should be ancient enough to allow 6days to demonstrate his claim.

                        Stuart

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Stuu View Post
                          Where is the 'starting genome' then? The one you have compared with the current one?

                          Stuart
                          Stuu…..You are not stupid, but your question sure is. Geneticists don't need a "starting genome" to know that genetic load is increasing....that there is genetic deterioration of the human condition... that risky alleles are steadily increasing....that there are more than 10,000 genetic diseases and problems, and that the number is increasing.

                          The evidence is absolutely consistent with God's Word... a perfectly created genome that has been subjected to several thousand years of corruption / mutations.

                          Genetics provides evidence that common ancestry is a false belief system. Research shows it is impossible that selection can detect and remove mutations which cause increasing genetic load.
                          Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by 6days View Post
                            Stuu…..You are not stupid, but your question sure is. Geneticists don't need a "starting genome" to know that genetic load is increasing....that there is genetic deterioration of the human condition... that risky alleles are steadily increasing....that there are more than 10,000 genetic diseases and problems, and that the number is increasing.
                            It's not geneticists who need a starting point to demonstrate a change, because it is you making the claim. But, we do have genomes of humans who lived 45,000 years ago and 430,000 years ago, among many examples.

                            So,how do you think they compare? Is the early genome a bright and shiny thing, and the modern one haggard and rough looking, full of genetic horrors? Do tell us what you think the evidence actually shows. What would be a test for your claim? What should we be able to see in that ancient DNA that isn't seen today?

                            Stuart

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Stuu
                              It's not geneticists who need a starting point to demonstrate a change, because it is you making the claim.
                              Stuu, it is geneticists who make the claim that genetic load is increasing. The evidence is absolutely consistent with God's Word... a perfectly created genome that has been subjected to several thousand years of corruption / mutations.

                              Genetics provides evidence that common ancestry is a false belief system. Research shows it is impossible that selection can detect and remove mutations which cause increasing genetic load.

                              Originally posted by Stuu
                              But, we do have genomes of humans who lived 45,000 years ago and 430,000 years ago, among many examples.
                              You are confusing your beliefs with science. But sure, show the mutation rate and number of mutations in the genomes of the "Sima people" (that you believe are 430000 years old) compared to modern humans. This will be interesting.
                              Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by 6days View Post
                                Stuu, it is geneticists who make the claim that genetic load is increasing. The evidence is absolutely consistent with God's Word... a perfectly created genome that has been subjected to several thousand years of corruption / mutations.
                                Evolutionist have a very difficult understanding what is a reasonable extrapolation based on science and one that is just a wild-eyed faith.
                                All of my ancestors are human.
                                Originally posted by Squeaky
                                That explains why your an idiot.
                                Originally posted by God's Truth
                                Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
                                Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
                                (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

                                1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
                                (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

                                Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X