Evolutionists: How did legs evolve?

[6days]

Your scriptural explanations are a reasonable theory

It isn't a theory Greg... It is God's Word, and I suggested that you read at least 3 chapters.

I'm working FORWARD from evidence

No Greg, you are trying to insert secular beliefs into God's Word and that is why you don't understand why Christ had to go to the cross.

 

[6days]

Yeah well I'm trying, with your help, to dissect this VSDM thing. How can I be dodging when I'm asking you questions trying to understand what the heck we are talking about?

Explain please how this works, bc the abstract isn't enough. I need to look at the whole process so I can UNDERSTAND it. You can't get that from the abstract. Explain why your question above is an issue? Pretend like I'm a fresh new student in elementary school. Educate me

Dodge 9.5?

Greg... if you don't understand near neutral mutations, VSDM's,then you obviously can't dissect anything in genetics.

Again... The question was "How can natural selection, simultaneously select and remove 100 VSDM's per person, per generation in a population with a birth rate of about 2? And... I asked if you could answer from science and not answer with beliefs.

 

[6days]

From the article: "[FONT="]Staring down the barrel of a [/FONT][/COLOR][URL="https://www.sciencealert.com/sperm-concentration-has-plummeted-by-50-in-less-than-40-years"]potential global male fertility crisis[/URL][FONT="], every little bit could help us diagnose and treat those with slow sperm." Why is that happening? :idunno:[/FONT]

Genetic load.... accumulation of mutations. We live in a fallen world.

 

[SUTG]

https://www.sciencealert.com/sperm-...iscovered-flagella?perpetual=yes&limitstart=1

Isn't evolution amazing in its intricate design and detail?

It's nice to see you dipping your toe into some real science, but don't stray too far towards the deep end.

University of Gothenburg, huh? Why is it always the "evolutionists" that are the ones doing research?

 

[Ktoyou]

It's nice to see you dipping your toe into some real science, but don't stray too far towards the deep end.

University of Gothenburg, huh? Why is it always the "evolutionists" that are the ones doing research?

because that is the stage we are in.

 

[Greg Jennings]

It isn't a theory Greg... It is God's Word, and I suggested that you read at least 3 chapters.

No Greg, you are trying to insert secular beliefs into God's Word and that is why you don't understand why Christ had to go to the cross.

Bc you believe as you do, you work BACKWARDS from your belief that Earth is 6000-10,000 years old.

That's just how all of geology and biology USED to believe also. They bought the biblical narrative as literal.

THEN they spent centuries gathering evidence, and now all scientific fields REJECT your views in favor of a very very old Earth

 

[Greg Jennings]

Dodge 9.5?

Greg... if you don't understand near neutral mutations, VSDM's,then you obviously can't dissect anything in genetics.

Again... The question was "How can natural selection, simultaneously select and remove 100 VSDM's per person, per generation in a population with a birth rate of about 2? And... I asked if you could answer from science and not answer with beliefs.

And I'm telling you for the umpteenth time, I am no expert here. I don't pretend to be an expert in places I'm not, unlike you creationists

Can you explain what your VSDM statement means, or no? Explain to me how the question you have in quotations above presents a problem for evolutionary theory?? Without being able to actually access to entire paper, I cannot tell you WHY the results were as they were.

 

[Right Divider]

Dodge count: 8

There are two different creations in Genesis. They don't line up. They contradict each other. Does this bother you?

Nope ... they are not two difference accounts OF THE SAME THING.

One is a linear day by day account, and the other is a generalization with a different view.

It's so simple that a child can understand it.

Why did all of biology and geology once believe as you do, then REJECTED your theory after gathering evidence over hundreds of years? Why are you too cowardly to answer this?

Is that your favorite mantra? Do you repeat it twenty times before you go to bed each night?

 

[George Affleck]

Evolutionists believe that natural selection and evolution are true, not because observation supports that conclusion, but because the first rule of the game is that it cannot allow an alternative. God is not available as an option because the whole point of naturalistic science is to explain how we got here without His involvement. If this were not true, supernatural intervention would be allowed as a possible option.

The interesting thing is that Darwinists do allow for an option beyond observation, similar to creationists, that belies a strict faith in their worldview. It is called putting the problem on the shelf. "We don't know the answer to that yet, but we are convinced that, upon further investigation- more digging - more lab work - more, more..." We get accused of retreating into "God did it" and they forget that they are continually retreating into "Naturalism did it; we just haven't connected the dots". Then comes the Parade of Possibilities where everyone is tripping over themselves trying to make their mark in the annals of science only to be shot down by the next theory du jour; and it never ends. Arrival is not the point of the journey. In fact, it is not at all desirable. The point is to somehow deal with conscience, installed in us by God for our good, in one of the thousands of ways available.

The more convinced a person is that Darwinism is basically true, the less reason there is to invoke the name of God. To be convinced that no alternative to naturalistic evolution is necessary is to "know" that God is not necessary. To be convinced that no alternative to naturalistic evolution is possible is to "know" that God is not possible. Naturalism, then, becomes the intellectual saviour of the conscience and we have the illusion of being free.

Well, no. Science isn't about that at all and it's an argument from bias or ignorance to state such. Evolution doesn't rule out God as cause as evidenced by the myriad scientists who have faith. It's a silly argument you have here and an erroneous one if you seriously think the goal of science is to 'do away with God'.

Here is a classic example of the inability of Darwinists to separate their beliefs about the past, for which there is no observational evidence, from observational science. Its all lumped together under the general heading of science. This is a fact that proves my point above. The ToE is not true science; its a tautology as Stripe has pointed out. It has the appearance of real science in the same way that Hollywood movies are incredibly realistic.

Here also is an example of an unbeliever's inability to understand the importance of taking God at His word. This "myriad of scientists who have faith" do not place it in God's ability to plainly speak to His creation without properly warning them that when He says day he really means epoch and when He says worldwide flood He really means a local one.

No, the goal of science is not to do away with God. The goal of Darwinian evolution, which is not science, does that by masquerading as real science.

 

[Jose Fly]

And I'm telling you for the umpteenth time, I am no expert here. I don't pretend to be an expert in places I'm not, unlike you creationists

Can you explain what your VSDM statement means, or no? Explain to me how the question you have in quotations above presents a problem for evolutionary theory?? Without being able to actually access to entire paper, I cannot tell you WHY the results were as they were.

Oh I'd bet any amount of money that 6days hasn't read that paper. The most obvious reason is that it's behind a paywall, and the other reason is because it's a very specialized topic within population genetics. So I seriously doubt he paid money to get a paper he doesn't understand at all.

IOW, 6days is bluffing......again. The question now is just how much time and effort you're willing to expend trying to get 6days to admit it.

 

[Stripe]

Again, feel free to tell me exactly what he believes. Anything to streamline this convo a bit

:rotfl:

You streamline the conversation by responding sensibly. Slow down, read carefully and think through your posts. Make it rational and relevant. Don't misrepresent the guy you're talking to.

Who knows what this thread is about anymore. :idunno:

 

[musterion]

Why is it always the "evolutionists" that are the ones doing research?

You answer your own question.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Isaiah 40:22

It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

Sucks when the Bible disagrees with you, huh RD?

Forget walking into a scientific institution to learn something. Sounds like you could just as much use a trip to the local church

The Hebrew word translated as "circle" in that verse also means "sphere," so what's your point?

And stretching out the heavens could indicate the expansion of the universe.

 

[6days]

Oh I'd bet any amount of money that 6days hasn't read that paper. The most obvious reason is that it's behind a paywall, and the other reason is because it's a very specialized topic within population genetics. So I seriously doubt he paid money to get a paper he doesn't understand at all.

Ok... I bet you a cup of coffee.


It isn't behind paywall. And, in any case Greg only needed the abstract to understand what near neutral mutations are... and to answer the simple question I asked.

 

[6days]

And I'm telling you for the umpteenth time, I am no expert here. I don't pretend to be an expert in places I'm not, unlike you creationists

Ok.... I might have misunderstood when genetics was a topic you suggested saying...

Greg Jennings"Pick any one of those topics. I'll dissect it for you"

Can you explain what your VSDM statement means, or no? Explain to me how the question you have in quotations above presents a problem for evolutionary theory?? Without being able to actually access to entire paper, I cannot tell you WHY the results were as they were.

Greg.... just admit you don't understand the topic. What "results" are you talking about? You don't need to read an entire paper to answer a very simple question...and THERE IS a very simple answer. Maybe get Jose to help you, then you can pretend the answer is from you.

Bc you believe as you do, you work BACKWARDS from your belief that Earth is 6000-10,000 years old.

My starting point is the absolute truth of God's Word. The evidence ...science always helps confirm the truth of God's Word.

That's just how all of geology and biology USED to believe also. They bought the biblical narrative as literal.

That simply isn't true Greg. That would be great though if it was.

THEN they spent centuries gathering evidence, and now all scientific fields REJECT your views in favor of a very very old Earth

That is also false. What you could say, that would be true is that the majority of scientists reject God's Word... that is true. Because they reject Scripture, they interpret evidence to fit their apriori beliefs.


Here is absolute truth... Ex. 20:11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens, the earth, the sea, and everything in them; but on the seventh day he rested. That is why the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and set it apart as holy.

 

[The Barbarian]

Oh I'd bet any amount of money that 6days hasn't read that paper. The most obvious reason is that it's behind a paywall, and the other reason is because it's a very specialized topic within population genetics. So I seriously doubt he paid money to get a paper he doesn't understand at all.

IOW, 6days is bluffing......again. The question now is just how much time and effort you're willing to expend trying to get 6days to admit it.

What happens usually, is a creationist organization uses search engines to find key words and then scans the article to see if there's anything to quote mine to make it look as though the author meant something that he did not.

If they find something, they then post their revision of the research on a website for people to cut and paste so they can "prove" that "even evolutionists don't believe in evolution."

It's an old game; the advantage is that even people like Stipe and 6days, who know nothing of biology, can use it. The downside is that it's a major embarrassment for them if they parrot the story on a site where people know something about it.

 

[Jose Fly]

It isn't behind paywall.

Really? Here's the link you provided:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519385701671

As you can see, right above the title of the journal, there's a "Purchase PDF" button, and at the bottom of the page it says "Choose an option to locate/access this article" which gives you the choice of either checking access (which takes you to a sign-in page) or purchasing the article outright.

So do you have access to the article via some other means? If so, how about posting the link through which Greg can get the full paper for free?

 

[Jose Fly]

What happens usually, is a creationist organization uses search engines to find key words and then scans the article to see if there's anything to quote mine to make it look as though the author meant something that he did not.

If they find something, they then post their revision of the research on a website for people to cut and paste so they can "prove" that "even evolutionists don't believe in evolution."

It's an old game; the advantage is that even people like Stipe and 6days, who know nothing of biology, can use it. The downside is that it's a major embarrassment for them if they parrot the story on a site where people know something about it.

Yup. When I looked around to see how to get the full article, most of the hits I got were to creationist websites repeating each others' talking points. So obviously 6days is just parroting what one of those sites told him, with little to no understanding of the actual material.

But then....we've seen this play before.

 

[The Barbarian]

Who knows what this thread is about anymore. :idunno:

It's about the way legs evolved. And we discussed the evidence showing that vertebrate legs evolved from fins, using the same bones present in fins of lobe-finned fish. We spent a little time showing how genetics supports the fossil and anatomical data, and we showed how each step in the evolution of vertebrate legs would be useful.

We then showed how fossil record, anatomy, and genetics supports the finding that arthropod legs evolved from lobpods found on onychophorans and their relatives.

And lastly, we showed the "legs" of kinesins evolved from simpler kinesans and dynins.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Really? Here's the link you provided:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519385701671

As you can see, right above the title of the journal, there's a "Purchase PDF" button, and at the bottom of the page it says "Choose an option to locate/access this article" which gives you the choice of either checking access (which takes you to a sign-in page) or purchasing the article outright.

So do you have access to the article via some other means? If so, how about posting the link through which Greg can get the full paper for free?

So you're asking him to help Greg obtain access to a paper that requires payment to view?

That's called theft, Jose. I thought you were better than that.