I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution

[Right Divider]

Yes it is. Humans do this all the time. It's called mutation breeding.

It does NOT create radically different types of creatures. Dogs remain dogs... etc. etc. etc.

How do you define "complex" life forms?

Life forms with systems that are all interdependent and could not have "evolved together".

 

[Alate_One]

It does NOT create radically different types of creatures. Dogs remain dogs... etc. etc. etc.

Saying "dogs remain dogs" is a bit of goalpost moving. A Pug is not even close functionally to a wolf. And there's more variation in domestic dog skull shape than all of the order carnivora. Would you say a cat and a dog are the same kind of creature? Could they have evolved from a common ancestor in your view?

What about Horses and Donkeys? They can produce hybrid offspring, albeit sterile. Are they radically different types of creatures? How about sheep and goats?

What's "radically different" in your view?

Life forms with systems that are all interdependent and could not have "evolved together".

Uhh could you be slightly less vague?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Saying "dogs remain dogs" is a bit of goalpost moving. A Pug is not even close functionally to a wolf. And there's more variation in domestic dog skull shape than all of the order carnivora.

None of that changes the fact that BOTH are of the "dog" kind.

Would you say a cat and a dog are the same kind of creature?

No.

Could they have evolved from a common ancestor in your view?

Question begging.

What about Horses and Donkeys? They can produce hybrid offspring, albeit sterile. Are they radically different types of creatures? How about sheep and goats?

What's "radically different" in your view?

Uhh could you be slightly less vague?

He's being perfectly clear.

 

[Right Divider]

Saying "dogs remain dogs" is a bit of goalpost moving. A Pug is not even close functionally to a wolf. And there's more variation in domestic dog skull shape than all of the order carnivora. Would you say a cat and a dog are the same kind of creature? Could they have evolved from a common ancestor in your view?

We don't know exactly what the "kinds" are that God created. But we know that there were more than one.

What about Horses and Donkeys? They can produce hybrid offspring, albeit sterile. Are they radically different types of creatures? How about sheep and goats?

How about it? You've already defined multiple kinds.

What's "radically different" in your view?

A man is radically different from a single celled organism.

Uhh could you be slightly less vague?

Humans are a pretty good example. We have MANY systems that are interdependent and that could not have "evolved" independently.

 

[Alate_One]

We don't know exactly what the "kinds" are that God created. But we know that there were more than one.


How about it? You've already defined multiple kinds.

Are sheep and goats the same kind or not?

A man is radically different from a single celled organism.

Well that's moving the goal posts rather far now isn't it? There are many many steps to get from there to here. But that's not really your fundamental disagreement.

What is the smallest step you disagree with? Could humans have shared a common ancestor with chimpanzees?

Did cows and sheep share a common ancestor? Are they "radically different"?

Humans are a pretty good example. We have MANY systems that are interdependent and that could not have "evolved" independently.

Nothing evolves independently. Species evolve together and organ systems evolve together. New species can arise by hybridization.

Of course what systems you're talking about might make things a little clearer.

 

[way 2 go]

How do you define "complex" life forms?

all life forms are complex
there are no simple " I can create it " life forms

 

[Right Divider]

Are sheep and goats the same kind or not?

I don't know. Do you?

Well that's moving the goal posts rather far now isn't it? There are many many steps to get from there to here. But that's not really your fundamental disagreement.

It's a problem for those that think that man evolved from a single celled creature.

What is the smallest step you disagree with? Could humans have shared a common ancestor with chimpanzees?

Not according to the most reliable source that we have.... the Bible.

Did cows and sheep share a common ancestor?

I don't know. Do you?

Are they "radically different"?

:juggle:

Nothing evolves independently.

:dizzy:

 

[Right Divider]

Nothing evolves independently. Species evolve together and organ systems evolve together.

And here I thought that you wanted to talk about science and not shear speculation.

 

[Alate_One]

And here I thought that you wanted to talk about science and not shear speculation.

Not speculation. If evolution is true, an entire organism evolves. Each entire organism must be functional so you don't have a generation with a heart and one without. You have simple hearts, then more complex hearts with small but functional steps in between.

Worms for example, are said to have 10 hearts. Which might make you think they are ten complex four chambered structures like those found in humans, but no. They are ten pulsating blood vessels, each being the simplest form of a heart.

This all isn't rocket science to figure out.

 

[Right Divider]

Not speculation.

Yes, it is.

If evolution is true, an entire organism evolves.

It's not true, life did not start as a single celled creature and "evolve" into a man.

Each entire organism must be functional so you don't have a generation with a heart and one without.

:duh:

You have simple hearts, then more complex hearts with small but functional steps in between.

Even the simplest heart is vastly complex and is part of an even vastly more complete SYSTEM. How did the very first "heart" evolve where none existed before AND when it also requires so much more than just itself?

Worms for example, are said to have 10 hearts. Which might make you think they are ten complex four chambered structures like those found in humans, but no. They are ten pulsating blood vessels, each being the simplest form of a heart.

Did you have a point? Sounds like you are confirming my point.

This all isn't rocket science to figure out.

:rotfl:

 

[Alate_One]

It's not true, life did not start as a single celled creature and "evolve" into a man.

You can't even assume, for the sake of argument, that you could be wrong and think about what could be possible?

Even the simplest heart is vastly complex and is part of an even vastly more complete SYSTEM. How did the very first "heart" evolve where none existed before AND when it also requires so much more than just itself?

I told you what a simple heart looks like. It's just a blood vessel surrounded by a few muscle cells that pulsate at regular intervals.

The only "arguments" you've presented are personal incredulity and simple rejection of any evidence I post.

 

[Right Divider]

You can't even assume, for the sake of argument, that you could be wrong and think about what could be possible?

You can't even believe God when He tells us what He did?

I told you what a simple heart looks like. It's just a blood vessel surrounded by a few muscle cells that pulsate at regular intervals.

The only "arguments" you've presented are personal incredulity and simple rejection of any evidence I post.

Once again you oversimplify how the heart works and how extremely complex systems can "evolve".

They just magically "pulsate at regular interval"? I guess that these magic "regular interval pulsations" just somehow "evolve" at the right time and in the right way based on random mutations?

It is any wonder creationists mock evolutionist ideas?

 

[7djengo7]

How do you define "complex" life forms?

If God had wanted to clearly distinguish different life forms, He could have given each group a different genetic code or a different functional format.

How do you define "life forms"?

Is a dog a life form?
Is a group of dogs a life form?

 

[Alate_One]

You can't even believe God when He tells us what He did?

The way it is written, isn't a "I did it exactly this way". It's God speaking and the earth brings forth, but all of it is in a poetic structure. So your question would be like me asking why you don't believe that rain literally falls from windows. Or that there was a literal dome in the sky.

Once again you oversimplify how the heart works and how extremely complex systems can "evolve".

I'm not talking about the human heart, I'm talking about a worm heart.

They just magically "pulsate at regular interval"? I guess that these magic "regular interval pulsations" just somehow "evolve" at the right time and in the right way based on random mutations?

This isn't magic. There's a specific molecular mechanism to do this. Which is relatively complex but it originates from even simpler structures that move single cells around - the cytoskeleton. Of course, muscles in general would evolve from the structures of the cytoskeleton. Not all animals alive today have hearts, but most have muscles. Heart cells grown in culture do pulsate on their own without the structure of an actual heart.

It is any wonder creationists mock evolutionist ideas?

Do you ever wonder why creationists are mocked by scientists all over the world? Because your ideas have no basis in evidence from the natural world.

Besides, you never present evolutionary ideas as they are, you always try to attack a straw man version whenever possible. That's not at all necessary with YEC ideas.

 

[7djengo7]

If evolution is true, an entire organism evolves.

The theory of evolution has nothing to do with changes in individual animals or plants. It deals with populations.

What a tangled web y'all weave! Alate_One affirms that an organism evolves while chair denies that an organism evolves.

 

[7djengo7]

Do you ever wonder why creationists are mocked by scientists all over the world?

Do you ever wonder why Bible-believers take your pretensions to being a Christian with a grain of salt, at best?

It's simple: Because, as you proudly display--by your unrelenting championing of nonsense, falsehood, and fairy tales, against the Bible--you heartily despise God's Word.

 

[Right Divider]

The way it is written, isn't a "I did it exactly this way".

God gives enough details to know that all life did NOT descend from a single common ancestor.

It's God speaking and the earth brings forth, but all of it is in a poetic structure.

Falsely pretending that Genesis 1 &2 are "poetic" is no explanation.

So your question would be like me asking why you don't believe that rain literally falls from windows. Or that there was a literal dome in the sky.

See how easy it is to spot ACTUAL poetic structure?

I'm not talking about the human heart, I'm talking about a worm heart.

Did you major in creative writing?

 

[Stripe]

There is no such thing as a genome of a "wider banana family".

Of course there is.

If you have a non-diverse genome it's the genome of an individual, period.

We're talking about populations.

Any individual organism can only contain a certain set of genes.

That's nice.

There is a reason why there is a science called population genetics.

That's what we're talking about.

A population can contain far more versions of a gene than an individual can.

That's nice.

This is why genetic diversity in a population is important. Without diversity in a population, you are literally missing genetic information.

Once again, you're seeking to talk about something else. We're not talking about the state of a population's genome, we're talking about what happens as it diversifies. Diversification makes it worse. It was better before it diversified. That does not make the initially creates genome bad.

Try to address the issue as it is presented. Beating up a challenge that was not issued is silly.

Your assertions have no basis in reality.

Of course they do. Bananas today were cultivated from bananas of the past. Pretending that today's bananas are representative of bananas of the past is obviously silly.

The problem for Bananas is any one banana variety is every individual plant is virtually identical to any other.

All of those varieties came from a common ancestor population. So the question is: Which has greater integrity — the previous population that spawned what we have today or today's greater diversity, which is heading for extinction?

The variety name of almost all global bananas is Cavendish. However Cavendish was a replacement for an older banana variety, Gros Michel which wasn't immune to a now global strain of Panama disease. So Cavendish replaced it because it was immune to the disease, a better variety. Well the disease has now changed and Cavendish isn't immune to this new version. And since Cavenish Bananas are all the same, they're all going to die from the disease without lots of chemical sprays (expensive).

It's great that you can switch on teacher mode at the drop of a hat, but are you ever going to address a challenge sensibly?

Replacing Cavendish is difficult because Bananas generally don't produce seeds at all so generating new varieties (variation) is difficult. The only way to solve this problem is VARIATION. Any time a disease appears, if there is variation, some individuals will survive. Without variation the population goes extinct or can only survive where the disease is not present.

Those that survive will have even less ability to adapt to further changes to their environment. Ie, the genetic integrity will diminish.

Simple entropy. :up:

 

[Stripe]

BTW, sheep and goats are of the same kind, ie, they are all descended from a common ancestor population.

 

[Yorzhik]

There are a lot of distinguished historians that reject the holocaust. Do you really want this as your argument?

A lot of *distinguished historians*? Besides Harry Elmer Barnes? Name them.

And the claims are?

The claim is:

There’s no reason to doubt that Darwin successfully explained the small adjustments by which an organism adapts to local circumstances: changes to fur density or wing style or beak shape. Yet there are many reasons to doubt whether he can answer the hard questions and explain the big picture—not the fine-tuning of existing species but the emergence of new ones. The origin of species is exactly what Darwin cannot explain.

The claim and support are here.

Yes you did. When you said "I realize some people think DNA is just like "code" but it really isn't... biology is analog" You are claiming that 4 symbols that can be combined to command physical things is somehow "analog".

I'm going to answer this alone since both you and Stripe seem to be confused on this point. Here is the problem. This is wrong. Adenine Thymine Guanine and Cytosine are NOT just symbols. They are chemicals and their chemical nature determines much of the genome's function.

Nothing I said specifies ATGC as *JUST* symbols (please note I'm saying they are symbols and also more than symbols). Nothing I said specifies that ATGC are not chemicals. Nothing I said specifies that ATGC are not chemical in nature and interact with the rest of the cell chemically.

The entire foundation of your post does not rebut what I said, and you aren't addressing the challenge being raised against common descent.

You cannot emulate the function of DNA by emulating only one of the functions of bases.

Yes and no. You can emulate parts of any code system that has discrete functions. And DNA has plenty of them. But of course the more you can emulate, the more you can understand. This neither rebuts nor addresses the challenge.

Example - Darwin's finches. They differ in the shape of their beaks. How is the beak shape made different? By how much a particular master control protein binds to a spot on DNA and how much protein is made by a specific gene. A tiny difference in that binding can change the amount of protein, a few hours more expression, creates most of the difference between the long beak of a cactus finch and the thick heavy beak of a ground finch.

The same kind of change created the human ability to digest milk as adults and produce amylase in our saliva. Regulatory changes are hard for scientists to detect because they don't operate as a simple code like codons and amino acids produced by them. The physical placement of regions of DNA inside of the cell is also important, some genes are close to one another, and others are not with proteins binding to them. The availability of specific regions of DNA to proteins is determined by the proteins binding to them and to the chemical modifications to the bases - epigenetics. You could model all of this in a computer theoretically but you would have to model all of DNA function as well as proteins and spatial organization, not just the order of ATGC.

Please, save yourself the time telling us how complicated the system is. No matter how complicated it is, it isn't magic.

Mind you this entire argument is basically for you to try to say, "see a computer scientist can understand DNA, therefore his opinion matters and evolution must be wrong." None of which follows from your argument, even if it were accurate. :dizzy:

No. The point of my argument is to say that DNA isn't magic. We can emulate enough of it to show that random mutations plus natural selection will not result in common descent.

So the question remains: Can you name a breakthrough that was made because they didn't view DNA as code?