Jose Fly
New member
Link? Citation? You totally bailed on the Readers Digest thing, so how about following through on this one?
Post it here so we can all see.
Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter MichaelCadry
- Start date
- Status
Link? Citation? You totally bailed on the Readers Digest thing, so how about following through on this one?
Post it here so we can all see.
Cross Reference
New member
A doctor does it with surgery using a stone age club made out of created stones.
Rosenritter
New member
I was considering how to lend you my electronic copy (I already loaned the paperback) but you can go purchase your own copy if you're going to be snarky. "Cure Tooth Decay", Ramiel Nagel. Chapter 2. Page 13, caption for picture, "In the modernized districts of Switzerland tooth decay is rampant. the girl, upper left, is sixteen and the one to the right is younger. They use white bread and sweets liberally. The two children below have very badly formed dental arches with crowding of the teeth. This deformity is not due to heredity.(Original caption.)"
There is data on a few different cultures including Swiss and Australian Aboriginal. "Genetic deformities" appeared in one generation because of changes in diet. One example they had was of identical twins (Gaelic), one of which adopted the modern diet, the other stayed with the traditional diet. There are observable differences in facial shape and dental arches.
Again, you are seriously disputing that diet can have an effect on traits of a population? This seems like a no-brainer.
Rosenritter
New member
You could also have found something like this yourself if you spent 60 seconds with Google. It's a little light when compared to the book I was referencing, but maybe a small enough size for you to bite into.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-15823276
"Dr Stock added: "[The finding] is particularly important in that it demonstrates that variation that we find in the modern human skeletal system is not solely driven by population history and genetics." These results fit with previous evidence of both a reduction in tooth and body size as humans moved to a more pastoral way of life. It also helps explain why studies of captive primates have shown that animals tend to have more problems with teeth misalignment than wild individuals. Further evidence comes from experimental studies that show that hyraxes - rotund, short-tailed rabbit-like creatures - have smaller jaws when fed on soft food compared to those fed on their normal diet."
Sounds like rapid adaptation to me. I don't think they are "evolving" smaller jaws in one generation.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-15823276
"Dr Stock added: "[The finding] is particularly important in that it demonstrates that variation that we find in the modern human skeletal system is not solely driven by population history and genetics." These results fit with previous evidence of both a reduction in tooth and body size as humans moved to a more pastoral way of life. It also helps explain why studies of captive primates have shown that animals tend to have more problems with teeth misalignment than wild individuals. Further evidence comes from experimental studies that show that hyraxes - rotund, short-tailed rabbit-like creatures - have smaller jaws when fed on soft food compared to those fed on their normal diet."
Sounds like rapid adaptation to me. I don't think they are "evolving" smaller jaws in one generation.
Jose Fly
New member
Sorry, but if you can't back up your claims then you can't be surprised when others don't just take your word for things.
So what exactly is this supposed to show? A bad diet messes up your teeth? How is that an example of a population adapting?
No one is disputing that diet affects individuals. I'm trying to figure out how you think this is relevant to populations adapting over time.
Here's a tip....when you make a claim, it's your responsibility to back it up.
Here's another tip...you should read through what you're citing before you post it. It might turn out to be something other than what you think.
If you read the actual paper the article is describing (CLICK HERE), you'll see it's all about how evolutionary mechanisms have shaped the human mandible.
So um.....thanks for posting that! Yet another example of the application of evolutionary theory! :thumb:
Rosenritter
New member
Very well then Michael, let's discuss this here. I will lay out a few ground rules. If we can agree on the rules we can proceed further. If we cannot agree on the rules then let us figure out rules we can agree on.
The question being addressed is "According to scripture, will God torment or torture anyone for an infinite duration?" This is also summarized by the pithy phrase "Eternal Conscious Torment" and can be found within the traditional doctrine of both the Roman Catholic Church and Islam. I understand your position to be "the Bible says yes" and my position to be "the Bible says no."
Rules follow:
1. All proof and evidence shall be from scripture. Scripture is to be defined including the sixty-six books of the canonical Christian bible. As there are differences in Bible translation which may or may not affect meaning, we shall use the King James Version (1769, modern punctuation and spelling).
2. Other non-canonical sources such as the book of Jasher, the book of Enoch, the books of the Apocrypha, and so forth, are not to be considered evidence. Quotations and opinions of theologians are irrelevant in terms of proof or evidence. Personal stories, dreams, and visions are not acceptable as evidence, and shall not be a substitute for scripture.
3. Questions shall be answered when asked, and likewise we shall attempt to abstain from rhetorical questions (or at least label them as such.) When a question is asked, we shall wait for the response rather than filling in the answer in an attempt to save time or provide a witty comeback.
4. Emotional arguments, while they may have their due place in persuasion, shall not be considered as evidence. See rule number 1, all evidence shall be from scripture.
5. Words shall be assumed to carry their normal meaning unless that would be incompatible with the immediate context. The scripture shall be allowed to interpret scripture to determine specific word meaning and application where it may differ with modern usage or dictionary meaning.
6. Scripture shall be considered inerrant and free from contradiction. Any interpretation which requires contradiction that does not resolve from scripture shall be deemed to be in error.
Are you willing to address this question on these terms? Or are there any other terms that should be included?
Rosenritter
New member
Jose, it certainly seemed that you were disputing that diet affects individuals. Individuals make up a population, one measures a population through individuals.
As per the BBC article, regardless of what they intended originally, it evidenced that populations can undergo change in a single generation from factors even including the hardness of food. If a population changes its diet, physical differences can manifest. Such as narrower jaws. Or for lizards, cecal valves.
Last edited:
Nope. A predictable and repeatable example of an organism adapting to its environment. Of course your author assumes the truth of his Darwinism, so he can't see the forest for the trees. Heck, he even admits the "mutations" are "non-random."
Non-random != evolution.
The competing paradigm is that the organisms have a mechanism to deal with a limited diet. The test between whether God is responsible for their abilities or if Darwindidit is the scientific approach:
1) Run the experiment 100 times. Prediction: The same conditions will produce the same results in the same timeframe because the changes aren't random and there is no wait on natural selection.
2) Run the experiment and allow the altered culture to revert to its previous state by reintroducing a full diet. Run the experiment again on the same batch. Repeat as necessary. Prediction: This procedure will result in the culture showing less ability to respond and eventually its death because the changes come at a cost.
Science is about testing ideas against the evidence, not asserting the truth of your religion and ignoring contrary data.
Tyrathca
New member
Actually they are saying that changed mutation rates (particularly certain types of mutations, in their case gene duplication) are inducible via certain stressors. They don't suggest that the mutations are Larmackian as I presume you do.
And yet the authors have no issues with calling what they saw evolution. What is more likely, you didn't understand the research and this misrepresented it or the authors didn't understand their own research?
Personally I think the real answer is you didn't even read the research past the first paragraph +/- a token keyword search.
Your "experiment" does not invalidate evolution regardless of results due to it's poor design. Evolution is expected to produce predictable results and even repeatable results especially when there is an easily attainable (i.e. small number of mutations needed) adaptation that is significantly superior to alternate routes. It's just really really hard to predict when there are multiple variables and becomes more of a probability estimate when there are multiple viable (or long) routes of adaptation.
6days
New member
Sure...Bird species changes fast but without genetic differences (species-specific DNA markers according to this article.
The researchers suggest that the lack of genetic markers may mean the changes in these birds happened so fast that the genes haven't had a chance to catch up yet!!!!
"Rapid phenotypic evolution during incipient speciation in a continental avian radiation" Proceedings of the Royal Society B.
1. No, they don't say "rates."
2. Even if they mean "rates," the challenge remains.
3. Your wording continues the line of assuming the truth of your Darwinism, which means you do not appreciate the opposing idea.
The "mutations" are a predictable and repeatable response to the conditions. It's like when you mix two chemicals and get a reaction: If the experiment is repeated, you'll get the same result in the same timeframe.
This rules out evolution.
It's more likely that both you and they have employed numerous fallacious arguments. We have already seen that they assumed the truth of their Darwinism and right here you offer a false dilemma and an appeal to authority.
Sorry. Nonsense doesn't defeat challenges to your precious religion.
Personally, I think you didn't even read the research past the first paragraph.
Nope.
The challenge remains regardless of how little you like it.
Your response here is tacit admission that you understand the challenge and cannot answer it, but your pride won't allow you to concede that there is a challenge and investigate further. Instead, you just assert that a more complicated experiment would uphold your religion and deny the falsifiable predictions I provided to bolster the YEC idea.
Yep, that's right: The creationist is doing science, while the Darwinist is holding to doctrine.
Tyrathca
New member
The article looked at genetic markers at neutral loci and found only small change, that is NOT the same as no genetic differences and the article in absolutely no way implied that the population changed without genetic change/mutation/natural selection. Quiet the contrary the authors talk about future research using different techniques to look into the precise genetic changes that resulted in the most prominent phenotype differences.
That doesn't make any sense, genes don't "catch up". You've completely misunderstood what the authors said.
Tyrathca
New member
Try actually reading the article rather than using [ctrl] + [F] "rates"
Like it or not they quite clearly are talking about an increased number of gene duplications triggered by stress (glucose restriction)
No it doesn't, the challenge is null and void without alteration. The article did not show what you claimed it did, changing the rate of some types of mutations is perfectly compatible with evolution and even easily explainable (i.e. reduced expression of genes which are involved in maintaining the integrity of DNA and/or repairing damage. Just like the amount of expression of genes for most other phenotypes is affected by environmental factors)
FYI this is not news to those of us who actually read scientific literature nor is this hidden. I remember reading about research such as this as a kid (I was/am a bit of a nerd...)
Your wording continues the line of assuming the truth of your Creationism, which means you do not appreciate the opposing idea.
How? Isn't biology and evolution just a complex branch of chemistry?
For the record they do not and cannot predict the precise mutations just the type of mutations and their probabilities. Much like chemistry where they can not and do not predict the reactions of each individual molecule but instead predict the net result based on probabilities of each occurring.
So you're just going to cherry pick the stuff which agrees with you and discard whatever doesn't based on..... your pre-existing opinions. Typical Stripe.
Really? Where? Because all I see is you misrepresenting the work of scientists who think their research conforms to evolution (but you clearly understand their research better than they do don't you? What with all the detailed critique and analysis you've put forward here so far on it and your obvious background in scientific literature and research methodology.... oh wait you've just repeated your tired old vague canned responses with no substance.
Do speak up when you having something other than "I'm still right and don't need to explain why"
That is not clear at all. All they say is: "A number of recent studies suggest that this adaptive flexibility may be enhanced by the occurrence of nonrandom mutations in response to specific stressors, as well as by the development of populations that remain stably differentiated over many generations."
And even if you're right, it doesn't negate the challenge.
Because you say so?
Nothing the article says has anything to do with the challenge. How could it? It just assumes the truth of your Darwinism.
That's nice. Even if I am mistaken about what it meant by "nonrandom," it does nothing to diminish the challenge.
FYI this is not news to those of us who actually read scientific literature nor is this hidden. I remember reading about research such as this.
Nope. Evolution is the idea that all life is descended from a universal common ancestor by means of random mutation and natural selection. The terminology I use — "adaptation" and "change" — does not eliminate Darwinism from the conversation. However, this article assumes the truth of Darwinsim by calling the changes "evolution" and "mutations," which rules out any other explanation.
The creationist's are doing science and the Darwinists are sticking to dogma.
It's not very difficult. When you see a response after mixing two chemicals and it happens every time in the same timeframe, we assume the is a specific chemical response going on, not a random mutation.
Nope. Evolution is not chemistry. It's just a theory.
Nope. I'm going to assert a challenge and make predictions. Falsifiable ones.
Science, remember?
Do speak up when you have something other than "I'm still right and don't need to explain why."
Abel was a shepherd, one generation after creation. Abraham and his family were shepherds, about 1500 years later. Moses was a shepherd around 1200 BCE. They are all described as herding sheep with the same Hebrew word.
At what point did the "sheep-kind" become sheep as we know them today? Did Abel herd "sheep-kind",and Moses something else?
Tyrathca
New member
Your lack of ability to read past the first paragraph is noted and then only to reference someone referencing someone. Try the discussion section, or perhaps if you don't want to talk about their research actually reference the studies you think convincing rather than quote-mining someone referencing someone else and twisting it to mean something the authors did not mean.
What then is the challenge? You've left it very vague (just as you like it...)
So it was just an intentional red herring? Yet again you come here with no substance to add.
My understanding of the challenge was that it was dependent on that meaning of non-random which now being abandoned. Could you perhaps expalin it in a different way without red herrings?
I wont hold my breathe, I know how much you love to pretend you've said something clear and eloquent earlier if only someone could find it.
I'll say it again... Really? Where are these creationists doing science? All I see is you continuing to try and warp the work of scientists to say something other than they were trying to say.
And yet the reactions happening are at random, eg H2O + CO2 <-> H2CO3 happens at random, some molecules before others randomly not all at once, and it does not occur in a singular direction, random H2CO3 will turn back to H2O and CO2. The net result is predictable based on the probabilities of each event occurring (with an equilibrium eventually reached as the probability of a reaction occurring one way reaches the probability of the reaction going the other in another part of the reactants)
It's random AND predictable.
Yeah, you're obviously not very good at reading journal articles about it. Try harder. :thumb:
You're a walking talking cliche Stripe.
Cross Reference
New member
Yeah, like the "how" of breast milk.
:darwinsm:
Is this seriously what you consider a challenge?
:yawn:
Are you being deliberately dense? I would fully conceded that the authors meant what they wrote. That they wrote "nonrandom mutations" and might mean something other than "nonrandom mutations" is a complete non-issue. If I raised it in error, I take it back.
However, you've shown nothing other than your contrariness to show they did mean "rates."
Nope. Specific, testable and falsifiable. You should try reading. :up:
Nope. I think the phrase contradicts evolution. If it has a specific meaning within the Darwinist paradigm, I'll withdraw the comment.
Nope. My challenge stood without any reference to the paper. You should try understanding what I say instead of demanding that it must be wrong.
Can you hold my beere?
I've laid out a challenge to the article that includes tests and predictions. :idunno:
It's pretty easy to find.
:darwinsm:
So, which is it? Random or predictable?
Evolution is founded upon the notion of random changes to the genome — which means that predictable, repeatable, normal processes would act in a myriad of ways to produce a range of genotypes if the same combination could be put together multiple times under the same conditions. It sounds like we could just drop the "random" part from "random mutations," according to your analysis.
:dizzy:
Darwinists. :chuckle:
You're a walking, talking contradiction.
- Status