I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution

[Alate_One]

You just describe it that way. When you say DNA isn't code, when it looks and acts like code, makes it something... else... that does unbelievable things.

It is partly code, but that's not all it does, it's also the switches and how it works is based on shape and location, not just the "code".

We model DNA as code. What does "modeling the chemical basis" mean? Let's say we find a switch in DNA. It won't matter if the switch is chemical or electrical or mechanical, it's modeled the same way. To say otherwise is to claim that some switches are magic.

A mechanical switch is either on or off. A DNA switch is not just on or off and it may interact with other proteins that may modulate the action of the switch protein, depending on the situation.

What really makes the difference is how often a protein interacts with DNA, these are molecules that jump around. If it's attached to DNA 60% of the time, maybe that's one level of on, then 40%, 20% etc. Then maybe it interacts with two other proteins 10 and 5% of the time. But for every DNA switch you'd have to find ALL of that out before you could even model a single cell and *then* try to model mutation and selection with multiple iterations of said cell.

Which is why I said it would be easier to model the chemical basis of proteins and DNA, then you wouldn't have to know everything beforehand because the model would act the way a real cell does automatically.

Example? Can we extrapolate that model to some kind of simple model of common descent that doesn't include a goal?

Anything you use to model evolution is going to have to have some kind of selection criteria. I'm guessing you will complain this is a "goal" no matter what.

Lenski hasn't found anything that helps to show common descent. What he has found is two things. The first, and the majority of the cases of improvement in fitness, come from something breaking in the DNA. And since we can de-code what breaks, we know DNA in bacteria is code. A minority of cases is an improvement from existing code that is accessed by few mutations.

Yes, he's only looking at microevolutionary change. The evidence for common descent is already well supported by fossils and DNA.

Evo devo will not save you. The reason Evo Devo exists is because it became apparent that mutations could not build the complex code required for life. They had to think of a way to get big changes from few mutations. But Evo Devo is just a subset of mutation plus natural selection and has to live with the same consequences.

Scientists compare organisms and see that larger changes are made by small adjustments in developmental genes. This is already known so I don't know why you think it is some kind of "failure".

You didn't read. It makes very powerful predictions about relationships between groups. It's much more accurate about relatedness and shows common descent hierarchies are wrong.

I didn't see any predictions made.

When you say things like this a layman like me can only point at the emperor and declare he has no cloths. Dawkin's model is this:
1. Light sensitive patch exists
2. Magic happens
3. Eyes!

Not at all. He goes through individual stages, each of which have a selective advantage. A cup shaped eye patch, a more and more constricted eyepatch, then the evolution of a transparent layer.

The changes required for bacteria-like organisms to become parts of cells takes a lot of mutations. Good luck with that.

Why then do mitochondria and chloroplasts have circular DNA like bacteria? Ribosomes that are most similar to bacteria?

Again, though, endosymbiosis is a theory based mostly on looks. If it wasn't based on looks, common descentists would at least want to know a rough answer to the question of how many mutations it would take to pull off a trick like that. But they *don't even ask the question*.

How many? Is that really the question when plenty of organisms are able to keep chloroplasts alive for extended periods within their tissues?

The evidence for the flood is huge. A couple examples are the Grand Canyon and the vast sediment layers. And they are just a couple in a mountain of evidence for a catastrophic flood.

However, my point is that you seem to look at the flood in a cartoon way despite people showing you how the cartoon version you keep talking about is wrong.

Hydroplates are a cartoon version of the flood.

I guess you're not interested in that book I mentioned?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Okay I think we need to stick a fork in this particular conversation.

Why? Because he's trying to define terms, something which every evolutionist hates?

:rotfl: Oh you're trying to be serious? I see why we're not getting anywhere. It's not argumentation when you simply deny the other side's position exists, or could exist.

Are you saying that gene frequencies changing in a population due to natural selection (a simple definition of biological evolution) is not something that happens?

Clearly, that's not what he said, which you would have known had you paid attention.

Evolutionists love redirecting the argument to "change" rather than things that do in fact happen and work, like natural selection.

I think you're doing a very good job of demonstrating how vacuous your conversation/debating skills are. You're quite literally a one trick pony.

This coming from someone who, in making this comment, is appealing to ridicule.

:AMR:

Well I think I'm going back to ignoring you since all you do is claim to not know the meaning of simple and easily defined words, rather than make any attempt to engage in the subject matter.

So if they're so easy to define, then define them so the conversation can move on.

Or is that too much to ask from you?

 

[Alate_One]

Why? Because he's trying to define terms, something which every evolutionist hates?

No, I define something and then he either says I didn't define it or he picks a new word that needs defining. Lather rinse repeat.

So if they're so easy to define, then define them so the conversation can move on.

Or is that too much to ask from you?

He's doing it with virtually every word I say.

Reductio ad absurdum.

 

[Caino]

So, you think the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is a created being?
Was the God Whom Jesus revealed a created being?

Men of the Bible created, in their own image, the God Who created those men of the Bible in His own image? How does that work? Men created the God Who created the men who created the God Who created the men who created the God Who created....?

This is how it works. Men wrote about their concept of God, they projected human emotions onto him. Where the voice of God occurs is in actuality the narration of their opinion about how God thinks and acts.

 

[JudgeRightly]

No, I define something and then he either says I didn't define it

For example? If you could link to where you initially used a term, where he asked for a definition, where you provided one, and where he then says that you didn't define it, or even just the post numbers would be fine.

or he picks a new word that needs defining.

Maybe he's just trying to comprehend your position? How do you know if you don't answer him, but instead stonewall against the simple questions.

Or are you that scared of your own position that you can't define terms whenever and wherever asked? In other words, if you can't answer the simple questions, theen why should anyone trust you when you answer the hard questions?

Lather rinse repeat.

He's doing it with virtually every word I say.

Reductio ad absurdum.

He's really not.

By the way, that's not reductio ad absurdum, as far as I can tell.

 

[JudgeRightly]

This is how it works. Men wrote about their concept of God, they projected human emotions onto him. Where the voice of God occurs is in actuality the narration of their opinion about how God thinks and acts.

Because you say so?

Because some book says so?

The Bible claims to be authored by God Himself (using men as His pens.)

Let God be true, and every man a liar.

That includes you and whoever wrote the UB.

 

[Caino]

You've just told us that we (those of us who believe that God wrote the Bible) wrote the Bible. Please cite which passage(s) of the Bible you're saying I, personally, wrote, and tell me when I wrote it/them. I, for one, don't recall having been a collaborator in this literary hoax you are alleging. In fact, so far as I know, the Bible had already been written, and published, a few years before I was even born.

The subject is the literate, educated priest class writing and rewriting the scripture. Going forward subsequent generations of church authorities claim God actually wrote them. They shame sincere believers who dare challenge their claims of divine authorship.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The subject is the literate, educated priest class writing and rewriting the scripture.

And you believe whoever told you this because....?

Going forward subsequent generations of church authorities claim God actually wrote them. They shame sincere believers who dare challenge their claims of divine authorship.

You believe a book written by man more than you believe the Book that was written by God, and your book does not align with His.

Let God be true, and Caino a liar.

 

[Caino]

And you believe whoever told you this because....?



You believe a book written by man more than you believe the Book that was written by God, and your book does not align with His.

Let God be true, and Caino a liar.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Were you going to say something?

 

[Stuu]

...the human population, beginning at 0, while gaining individuals, must, at some point consist of no more than 1 individual, and then, at a later point, consist of no more than 2 individuals, and so on, up to a population of 10,000. You deny this basic truth by saying that a human population can either be 0 humans, or "about 10,000" humans, but never only 1 human, and never only 2 humans, and never only some positive number less than "about 10,000" humans. You're just that devoted to irrationality.

There never was a time when there was only 1 human, or only 2.

Generally, evolution happens imperceptibly slowly, and you have to decide when you are going to stop calling the population Homo heidelbergensis and start calling it Homo sapiens. You could credibly choose any one day of perhaps 40 million days to be the one where you decide that it's time to change the name. Then, on that day, instead of having 10,000 Homo heidelbergensis, now you have 10,000 Homo sapiens.

If you prefer the wider distinction of 'human' then you have a very large number of millions of days from which to choose the changeover day.

Stuart

 

[Arthur Brain]

Why? Because he's trying to define terms, something which every evolutionist hates?



Clearly, that's not what he said, which you would have known had you paid attention.

Evolutionists love redirecting the argument to "change" rather than things that do in fact happen and work, like natural selection.



This coming from someone who, in making this comment, is appealing to ridicule.

:AMR:



So if they're so easy to define, then define them so the conversation can move on.

Or is that too much to ask from you?

No, he's blathering, just like he did in the adjoining thread where his ignorance in regards to what the theory of evolution is actually about was pointed out. It's up to him to think it's a whole load of bunk and whatever but the theory itself has nothing to do with how life itself came into being. A schoolboy error and one that most have the good sense to shuffle away from once shown.

That and his continual "LOL" shtick and childish antics deserve what exactly? Time and effort?

lain:

 

[JudgeRightly]

There never was a time when there was only 1 human, or only 2.

Generally, evolution happens imperceptibly slowly, and you have to decide when you are going to stop calling the population Homo heidelbergensis and start calling it Homo sapiens. You could credibly choose any one day of perhaps 40 million days to be the one where you decide that it's time to change the name. Then, on that day, instead of having 10,000 Homo heidelbergensis, now you have 10,000 Homo sapiens.

If you prefer the wider distinction of 'human' then you have a very large number of millions of days from which to choose the changeover day.

Stuart

First, you need to get past the idea that, according to chair:

Individuals don't evolve.

Because if individuals don't evolve, then how did the first bit of life on earth get past it's initial stages?

Because if, as chair says, individuals don't evolve...

So then, the first bit of life on earth didn't evolve? :think:

Let alone however many creatures could suddenly be called "human"...

 

[JudgeRightly]

No, he's blathering, just like he did in the adjoining thread where his ignorance in regards to what the theory of evolution is actually about was pointed out. It's up to him to think it's a whole load of bunk and whatever but the theory itself has nothing to do with how life itself came into being. A schoolboy error and one that most have the good sense to shuffle away from once shown.

That and his continual "LOL" shtick and childish antics deserve what exactly? Time and effort?

lain:

As I recall, you, yourself, failed to answer his two very simple questions, instead you posted a link to a wiki article and said "there, I've answered it" when in fact you, yourself, had NOT answered it, but rather claimed that your link answered it.

So you should probably consider that before attacking 7d.

 

[JudgeRightly]

There never was a time when there was only 1 human, or only 2.

Generally, evolution happens imperceptibly slowly, and you have to decide when you are going to stop calling the population Homo heidelbergensis and start calling it Homo sapiens. You could credibly choose any one day of perhaps 40 million days to be the one where you decide that it's time to change the name. Then, on that day, instead of having 10,000 Homo heidelbergensis, now you have 10,000 Homo sapiens.

If you prefer the wider distinction of 'human' then you have a very large number of millions of days from which to choose the changeover day.

Stuart

So if "humans" did not evolve all at once, but rather over a period of time, then you can't really say that "there never was a time when there was only 1 human, or only 2," because for the number of humans to go from 0 to "more than 2", the creatures that would eventually become humans would have to become human simultaneously.

Or are you of the mindset that individuals don't make up populations?

If so, I ask you (to borrow 7D's question):

What is the population of goldfish in a fish bowl if there is one (1) goldfish in the bowl?

 

[Arthur Brain]

As I recall, you, yourself, failed to answer his two very simple questions, instead you posted a link to a wiki article and said "there, I've answered it" when in fact you, yourself, had NOT answered it, but rather claimed that your link answered it.

So you should probably consider that before attacking 7d.

Um, no. His "very simple questions" were undermined by his complete ignorance as to what the ToE was even about JR. Nobody was stonewalling him.

Consider that, or don't.

 

[Stuu]

First, you need to get past the idea that, according to chair:

Chair: Individuals don't evolve.

Chair is quite right. If you review my post you will see that I too am saying that individuals don't evolve. It's populations that evolve.

Because if individuals don't evolve, then how did the first bit of life on earth get past it's initial stages?

A very good question. It reproduced, and started a population.

And a good question to ask at this point is, why don't we see that happening all the time today? And I think one answer is that although we don't have fossil evidence (wouldn't expect to find any) we do see aspects of the possible processes; and a second answer is that now life is so established on Earth in the form of microbes, whatever organisation of chemicals that arose which was capable of reproducing something like a cell would quickly become lunch for something already living, such is the evolutionary advantage bacteria have.

Let alone however many creatures could suddenly be called "human"...

Yes, that is exactly the problem. You can pick a point, say, 6 million years ago when our ancestors were tree-dwelling apes and pretty easily say 'not human', and then pick the present day and say 'human'. The point you are correctly highlighting is that there is not a definite single day for the name change. Your decision about where to split the difference will only be your opinion, based on what you think it takes to be called human.

Stuart

 

[Arthur Brain]

So if "humans" did not evolve all at once, but rather over a period of time, then you can't really say that "there never was a time when there was only 1 human, or only 2," because for the number of humans to go from 0 to "more than 2", the creatures that would eventually become humans would have to become human simultaneously.

Or are you of the mindset that individuals don't make up populations?

If so, I ask you (to borrow 7D's question):

What is the population of goldfish in a fish bowl if there is one (1) goldfish in the bowl?

There's one cat in a backyard. Does that encapsulate the population of cats in total?

No.

lain:

 

[Stuu]

So if "humans" did not evolve all at once, but rather over a period of time, then you can't really say that "there never was a time when there was only 1 human, or only 2," because for the number of humans to go from 0 to "more than 2", the creatures that would eventually become humans would have to become human simultaneously.

Yes. In this context, simultaneously means all changing together over the course of a couple of million years, not a couple of days.

Or are you of the mindset that individuals don't make up populations? If so, I ask you (to borrow 7D's question):

What is the population of goldfish in a fish bowl if there is one (1) goldfish in the bowl?

I recommend not being that impressed. That is called the logical fallacy of equivocation, where he has baited and switched between two definitions of population, namely "all the inhabitants of a particular place" and "a community of animals, plants, or humans among whose members interbreeding occurs", the latter being the relevant biological one. The population of one goldfish is one. The population of a goldfish in a bowl, in biology, is not a relevant concept because interbreeding is not that likely.

Stuart

 

[Caino]

And you believe whoever told you this because....?



You believe a book written by man more than you believe the Book that was written by God, and your book does not align with His.

Let God be true, and Caino a liar.

The liars are the men of the ancient priesthood who claimed that God wrote what they organized into scripture.

The creation myth of Genesis has been debunked leaving only those flat earth types left to defend the traditional story of origins of the discredited Israelites.