Who Is Your Creator message forum

 

Who Is Your Creator message forum
This Forum is Locked
Author
Comment
View Entire Thread
That... is why you fail

"I'm not the least bit interested in your philosophical arguments"

In the words of Yoda: "That... is why you fail."

"If you would care to cite some scientific facts to substantiate your arguments, go ahead. If not, we'll wait for someone that can make a better go of it."

You can't expect me to respond to your challenges with negative arguments (i.e. "it is NOT this" and "it is not NECESSARILY that") and expect those to be corroborated with evidence. It's that there is NO evidence that it works in the way you describe or expect it to that points to the converse argument.

It also seems like you are expecting to hear about the number of the genes that changed, which ones they are, exactly when and in what animal, and where geographically that happened as an answer from me or anybody. I'm telling you, that's not going to happen now or anytime soon.

It's like both of us looking at a snow bank - you ask "tell me how did that snow get there". I explain about how snow forms and the wind and simple land formations, and you expect me to count the number of snowflakes and tell you how each one got there, and if I can't, then that snowbank was put there by magic. It just can't be done that way, there's too much information. You have to think more abstractly.

The cool thing is that with the knowledge of the PRINCIPLES involved (wind, snow, land formations) you can EXPECT a snow bank to turn up in any particular position with the given weather. It's the power of PREDICTION, and it can turn out to be right every time - not to mention, a pretty darn good EXPLANATION.

Evolution works in a very similar way. Even BETTER thing is that the more we learn about it, the more we find out about "different kinds of snowflakes" and "how many move in groups" given the kind of wind, etc etc. We're getting closer to all the details, but you have to understand what kind of question you're asking before you dismiss the entire ToE. You can't expect anyone to give the details you're asking for, they're just not known. However, be it known that it does NOTHING to belittle the ToE as it works and as it is SEEN to work in the real world.

"By the way, when the squirrels 'evolve' into something else, let us know"

Sure, no problem. Might take awhile and I don't think you'll be around for it (neither will I), and it may or may not even happen.

Predictions of evolution don't produce reality

In regard to your comment:

"The cool thing is that with the knowledge of the PRINCIPLES involved (wind, snow, land formations) you can EXPECT a snow bank to turn up in any particular position with the given weather. It's the power of PREDICTION, and it can turn out to be right every time - not to mention, a pretty darn good EXPLANATION.
Evolution works in a very similar way."


Evolutionary Predictions

Principles:
All matter and life

Prediction:
All matter and life was created through random events without any supernatural means.

Explanation:
1. The creation of the universe (cosmology) is now off limits because evolutionists claim that it has nothing to do with evolution.
http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/704592/2
http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/705803/1
http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/707017/1

2. The creation of life (abiogenesis) is also off limits because evolutionists claim that it has nothing to do with evolution.
http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/704592/2
http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/705803/1
http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/707017/1

3. The creation of novel or more complex traits in organisms (macroevolution) cannot be explained or proven because evolutionists don't know how it works:
http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/748021
http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/747258/
http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/746941/
http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/730697
http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/730588

"Students should realize that although virtually all scientists accept the general concept of evolution of species, scientists do have different opinions on how fast and by what mechanisms evolution proceeds.”
The American Association for the Advancement of Science, Educational Benchmarks, (F) Evolution of Life
http://www.project2061.org/publications/bsl/online/ch5/ch5.htm#F

“Scientists are still uncovering the specifics of how, when, and why evolution produced the life we see on Earth today."
Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History
http://www.nmnh.si.edu/paleo/geotime/main/foundation_life3.html

“But they are trying to figure out how evolution happens, and that's not an easy job.”
University of California Museum of Paleontology and the National Center for Science Education
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_50

"Precisely how and at what rates descent with modification occurs are areas of intense research. For example, much work is under way testing the significance of natural selection as the main driving force of evolution."
The American Geological Institute
http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution/mechanismforchange.html

“There seems to be a striking commonality between all major transitions in the evolution of life. In each new class of biological objects, the principal types emerge abruptly, and intermediate grades (e.g., intermediates between the precellular stage of evolution and prokaryotic cells or between prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells), typically, cannot be identified. The events that lead to the emergence of a new level of complexity and, obviously, are crucial in the evolution of life elude representation through a unique tree topology and are notoriously hard to reconstruct. Whatever trees have been constructed for these stages of life's history, have extremely short, most often, unreliable internal branches, and the tree topology tends to differ for different genes.”
The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution, Eugene V Koonin, National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, in Biology Direct 2007, 2:21.
http://www.biology-direct.com/content/2/1/21

4. The fossil record does not reflect Darwinism:
“Most of the animal phyla that are represented in the fossil record first appear, ‘fully formed,’ in the Cambrian some 550 million years ago...The fossil record is therefore of no help with respect to the origin and early diversification of the various animal phyla."
Richard S K Barnes, Peter Calow, Peter J. W. Olive, David W. Golding and John Spicer, ‘The Invertebrates: A New Synthesis’ (textbook), Updated 2000, Blackwell Publishing

"To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story - amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific."
Dr. Henry Gee, Ardent Evolutionist, Senior Editor, Biological Sciences for the journal Nature as written in his book, In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, New York, The Free Press, 1999, page 126-127.

5. Even evolutionists now doubt the 'randomness' of their own theory:

"In a Feb. 17, 2008 symposium at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) annual meeting in Boston,* Miller will argue that science itself, including evolutionary biology, is predicated on the idea of "design" -- the correlation of structure with function that lies at heart of the molecular nature of life."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080217143838.htm


In regard to your other comment:
"You can't expect anyone to give the details you're asking for, they're just not known. However, be it known that it does NOTHING to belittle the ToE as it works and as it is SEEN to work in the real world."

We don't have to belittle evolution. You guys seem to do a mighty fine job all by yourself.

Misconceptions and bad quotes

"Principles:
All matter and life"

Sorry, that's not what a principle is. A principle is a proposition or rule, not the subjects of the rules.

"Prediction:
All matter and life was created through random events without any supernatural means."

Also no. Evolution says nothing about the creation of matter or of life. The ToE explains the speciation of organisms through a branching process using mutation and natural selection. However, you are correct in that it does not need supernatural intervention.

"1. The creation of the universe (cosmology) is now off limits because evolutionists claim that it has nothing to do with evolution"

Evolution NEVER WAS about cosmology.

"2. The creation of life (abiogenesis) is also off limits because evolutionists claim that it has nothing to do with evolution"

Evolution NEVER WAS about abiogenesis. To say it has NOTHING to do with evolution is a bit harsh, though, because it does to some degree. However, that concept is not covered by the ToE.

"3. The creation of novel or more complex traits in organisms (macroevolution) cannot be explained or proven because evolutionists don't know how it works"

Utterly false statement. It's been explained to you MANY times how it works, but you refuse to accept it.

None of the quotes you gave give any indication that there is a PROBLEM with evolution, simply that there is more research to be done and that there is much more to contribute - NOT that it "doesn't work". Read these quotes more carefully.

"5. Even evolutionists now doubt the 'randomness' of their own theory:

"In a Feb. 17, 2008 symposium at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) annual meeting in Boston,* Miller will argue that science itself, including evolutionary biology, is predicated on the idea of "design" -- the correlation of structure with function that lies at heart of the molecular nature of life.""

THIS quote has NOTHING to do with the belief or disbelief in "randomness", rather the usage of the word "design" in explaining evolutionary concepts to people - to "take back" the word, so to speak, from the ID community, since apparently THEY'RE not using it...

We are thrilled to have you on our side!

In regard to your comment:

"Evolution NEVER WAS about cosmology."

and

"Evolution NEVER WAS about abiogenesis. To say it has NOTHING to do with evolution is a bit harsh, though, because it does to some degree. However, that concept is not covered by the ToE."


Great! Can we count on you to contact your fellow evolutionists in academia to notify them of their blunder?

Please refer to the new book touted by NCSE called ‘Science, Evolution, and Creationism’ by the National Academy of Sciences, which is “designed to give the public a comprehensive and up-to-date picture of the current scientific understanding of evolution and its importance in the science classroom …”

The book is full of fanciful and lengthy tales (page 18-22) of how the universe and life could have arisen and it’s received “praise both from the scientific community and newspapers across the country for its uncompromising endorsement of the necessity of including evolution in science education.”
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2008/US/954_kudos_for_emscience_evoluti_1_15_2008.asp

We are so excited that you will help us in straightening them out and know that you will immediately rally your troops before this book does permanent damage to your cause.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

"Principles:
All matter and life"

Sorry, that's not what a principle is. A principle is a proposition or rule, not the subjects of the rules.

"Prediction:
All matter and life was created through random events without any supernatural means."

Also no. Evolution says nothing about the creation of matter or of life. The ToE explains the speciation of organisms through a branching process using mutation and natural selection. However, you are correct in that it does not need supernatural intervention.

"1. The creation of the universe (cosmology) is now off limits because evolutionists claim that it has nothing to do with evolution"

Evolution NEVER WAS about cosmology.

"2. The creation of life (abiogenesis) is also off limits because evolutionists claim that it has nothing to do with evolution"

Evolution NEVER WAS about abiogenesis. To say it has NOTHING to do with evolution is a bit harsh, though, because it does to some degree. However, that concept is not covered by the ToE.

"3. The creation of novel or more complex traits in organisms (macroevolution) cannot be explained or proven because evolutionists don't know how it works"

Utterly false statement. It's been explained to you MANY times how it works, but you refuse to accept it.

None of the quotes you gave give any indication that there is a PROBLEM with evolution, simply that there is more research to be done and that there is much more to contribute - NOT that it "doesn't work". Read these quotes more carefully.

"5. Even evolutionists now doubt the 'randomness' of their own theory:

"In a Feb. 17, 2008 symposium at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) annual meeting in Boston,* Miller will argue that science itself, including evolutionary biology, is predicated on the idea of "design" -- the correlation of structure with function that lies at heart of the molecular nature of life.""

THIS quote has NOTHING to do with the belief or disbelief in "randomness", rather the usage of the word "design" in explaining evolutionary concepts to people - to "take back" the word, so to speak, from the ID community, since apparently THEY'RE not using it...

"side"? "blunder"?

"Great! Can we count on you to contact your fellow evolutionists in academia to notify them of their blunder?"

Blunder? Gee, talk about taking a misinterpretation about what I said and RUNNING with it... jeeez. Lighten up.

I assume you're referring to the connection with abiogenesis. Well, it seems that though there's some debate on whether or not it should be included as part of the argument or not - from WITHIN the scientific community:

From Pharyngula:
#15 is also a pet peeve: "Evolution is a theory about the origin of life" is presented as false. It is not. I know many people like to recite the mantra that "abiogenesis is not evolution," but it's a cop-out. Evolution is about a plurality of natural mechanisms that generate diversity. It includes molecular biases towards certain solutions and chance events that set up potential change as well as selection that refines existing variation. Abiogenesis research proposes similar principles that led to early chemical evolution. Tossing that work into a special-case ghetto that exempts you from explaining it is cheating, and ignores the fact that life is chemistry. That creationists don't understand that either is not a reason for us to avoid it.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/15_misconceptions_about_evolut.php

So hey - maybe PZ Myers is on "your side" too?

Abiogenesis?

Because random ‘self-assembly’ of life from non-life is a stretch, the word ‘spontaneous’ is out and has been replaced with the more seemingly scientific term called ‘abiogenesis.’ However, the same utter lack of evidence nullifies this evolutionary supernatural event also.

But, because evolutionists openly claim that abiogenesis had occurred “… in the ancient, unobservable past,” they don't feel the need to prove it actually occurred - I guess their word is good enough!

“Instead of life arising from non-life on a regular and observable basis, abiogenesis proposes life arising from non-life at some particular point in the ancient, unobservable past. But abiogenesis differs from spontaneous generation in another important way. While spontaneous generation proposed the emergence of a complete, complex cell or organism from organic molecules in one huge jump, abiogenesis draws from gradualism, where the original life forms were much simpler than modern cells and only gradually evolved their present-day form of complexity. Thus, abiogenesis not only places the spontaneous generation of life far in the past, but the life that is generated was supposedly much simpler, thus easier to generate spontaneously.”
http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Abiogenesis


Do you suppose that if creationists:
1. Gave the word 'creation' a more seemingly scientific name and;
2. repackaged it with a slight twist and;
3. acted insulted if called upon to prove it true;
4. that we could actually get the same mention in textbook as the religion of evolution does?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

"Great! Can we count on you to contact your fellow evolutionists in academia to notify them of their blunder?"

Blunder? Gee, talk about taking a misinterpretation about what I said and RUNNING with it... jeeez. Lighten up.

I assume you're referring to the connection with abiogenesis. Well, it seems that though there's some debate on whether or not it should be included as part of the argument or not - from WITHIN the scientific community:

From Pharyngula:
#15 is also a pet peeve: "Evolution is a theory about the origin of life" is presented as false. It is not. I know many people like to recite the mantra that "abiogenesis is not evolution," but it's a cop-out. Evolution is about a plurality of natural mechanisms that generate diversity. It includes molecular biases towards certain solutions and chance events that set up potential change as well as selection that refines existing variation. Abiogenesis research proposes similar principles that led to early chemical evolution. Tossing that work into a special-case ghetto that exempts you from explaining it is cheating, and ignores the fact that life is chemistry. That creationists don't understand that either is not a reason for us to avoid it.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/15_misconceptions_about_evolut.php

So hey - maybe PZ Myers is on "your side" too?

Re: Abiogenesis?

"However, the same utter lack of evidence nullifies this evolutionary supernatural event also."

What utter tripe. Lack of evidence does not mean that something didn't happen. It simply might mean it hasn't been discovered yet. May I remind you that abiogenesis is an ACTIVE scientific field.

"Evolutionary supernatural event"? Sorry, no such thing. The supernatural does not exist in science.

"Do you suppose that if creationists:
1. Gave the word 'creation' a more seemingly scientific name and;"

You mean like "Intelligent Design"?

"2. repackaged it with a slight twist and;"

You mean like "Intelligent Design" via the Discovery Institute?

"3. acted insulted if called upon to prove it true"

You mean like the way Casey Luskin, Michael Behe and William Dembski act?

"4. that we could actually get the same mention in textbook as the religion of evolution does?"

Nope, because Intelligent Design isn't science. It's a pseudoscience, unprovable and untestable, because it calls on the supernatural.

(I can only guess what your response is to this. I hear it coming... and you're wrong.)

That is why it's your faith, not science

In regard to your comment:

"Lack of evidence does not mean that something didn't happen. It simply might mean it hasn't been discovered yet. May I remind you that abiogenesis is an ACTIVE scientific field."

Since you admit that proof for a 'naturalistic' creation of the universe and life from non-life "hasn't been discovered yet," why do evolutionists feel the need to indoctrinate students claiming it has?


In regard to your comment:

"The supernatural does not exist in science."

Yes, we know that and that is why you guys keeps making up these utterly outrageous scenarios which are taken seriously ONLY because they leave no room for God:

Creation of the universe:
“A new theory of the universe suggests that space and time may not have begun in a big bang, but may have always existed in an endless cycle of expansion and rebirth.”
http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/02/0506/0506-cyclicuniverse.htm

“The big bang theory states that at some time in the distant past there was nothing. A process known as vacuum fluctuation created what astrophysicists call a singularity. From that singularity, which was about the size of a dime, our Universe was born.”
http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/IUP/Big_Bang_Primer.html

“The Earth initially formed from the same disk of dust and gas from which the sun itself coalesced. As the mass of the Earth increased, so did the gravitational force it exerted, and it was bombarded by objects from space ranging in size from dust particles to small planets (planetismals). The accretion of this material increased the size of Earth. The impacts of large bodies and the decay of radioactive elements generated heat that melted the materials of the young Earth, creating the “hellish” conditions for which the Hadean Eon was named.”
http://paleobiology.si.edu/geotime/main/hadean2.html


At least NASA admits to the futility of it all:

“Even though we now know the age and recipe of our Universe, we don't know what started it all. What was the energy that powered the Big Bang? What came “before” the Big Bang? What process planted the primordial seeds? We will go Beyond Einstein as we study these profound questions and attempt to understand our origins.”
http://universe.nasa.gov/science/bigbang.html


Theories for abiogenesis are even more entertaining:
http://www.astrobio.net/news/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=2434&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
http://www.physorg.com/news115988029.html
http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2007/463.html
http://www.uga.edu/news/artman/publish/071030_DNA.shtml
http://www.physorg.com/news100533246.htm
http://www.hhmi.org/news/szostak4.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron-sulfur_world_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis

In regard to your comment:

"Nope, because Intelligent Design isn't science. It's a pseudoscience, unprovable and untestable, because it calls on the supernatural."

I don't call the creation of the universe and life 'Intelligent Design.' It's called Creationism and, as seen on this board, I don't think evolution OR creationism should be taught as fact in science as neither can be proven by empirical evidence.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

"However, the same utter lack of evidence nullifies this evolutionary supernatural event also."

What utter tripe. Lack of evidence does not mean that something didn't happen. It simply might mean it hasn't been discovered yet. May I remind you that abiogenesis is an ACTIVE scientific field.

"Evolutionary supernatural event"? Sorry, no such thing. The supernatural does not exist in science.

"Do you suppose that if creationists:
1. Gave the word 'creation' a more seemingly scientific name and;"

You mean like "Intelligent Design"?

"2. repackaged it with a slight twist and;"

You mean like "Intelligent Design" via the Discovery Institute?

"3. acted insulted if called upon to prove it true"

You mean like the way Casey Luskin, Michael Behe and William Dembski act?

"4. that we could actually get the same mention in textbook as the religion of evolution does?"

Nope, because Intelligent Design isn't science. It's a pseudoscience, unprovable and untestable, because it calls on the supernatural.

(I can only guess what your response is to this. I hear it coming... and you're wrong.)

Science is not faith, because you can disprove it and change it

"Since you admit that proof for a 'naturalistic' creation of the universe and life from non-life "hasn't been discovered yet," why do evolutionists feel the need to indoctrinate students claiming it has?"

"Evolutionists" are not "indoctrinating" students into abiogenesis, because the field is still trying to figure out how it happened. Students are not generally taught about experimental fields. If they ask, they are pointed to the most recent papers.

Unfortunately for you, science HAS to be naturalistic. If it's not, it's not science.

"Yes, we know that and that is why you guys keeps making up these utterly outrageous scenarios which are taken seriously ONLY because they leave no room for God"

Science cannot make any comment on the existence or non-existence of a god, simply because the supernatural cannot be tested. Basically, science says "no comment" to god.

"I don't call the creation of the universe and life 'Intelligent Design.' It's called Creationism and, as seen on this board, I don't think evolution OR creationism should be taught as fact in science as neither can be proven by empirical evidence."

I'll tell you this again: science doesn't PROVE ANYTHING. Science is in the business of having the best natural explanation for the natural phenomena seen in the world. Proof has nothing to do with it. You're misusing these terms AGAIN.

Re: I'll wait for a more worthy opponent

Let's try this for those evol., fans out there. Let's just take a set of tripletts.... where is the mark of GOD on them.... they all look alike sound alike, have the same eyes noses etc. The lord states very plainly,,,in Scripture,KJV," I have knit thee together wonderfully in the womb,,, before you were I knew you". Think about those tripletts for a moment,,, they all have the mark of God on them as a special individual created by Him alone....give up ....ofcourse you do ,because you have bought into the "theroy" of evolution.......the mark of God is you finger prints and your foot prints ,,, not another being on the planet has you prints,,, not an animal past or present,,, not even a scientist that fronts for evolving someting out of nothing,,,,ain't it amazing!!! Just call me the "country boy',,, bet this is way too simple for you academics,,,huh?

Re: Metabolic change = Convergent evolution?

>Since you didn't offer a challenge, it didn't deserve a response.

My post was a RESPONSE to YOUR challenge regarding the "problems" with convergent evolution. Problem is, you withdrew the challenge.

>(By the way, your inability to articulate it yourself also did not deserve a
>response. You know the rules.)

Did you read the very bottom of the post? I "articulated". I know the rules.

Re: Convergent Evolution - what's to debate?



Name: akg41470

Just as in Europe, on this continent, mutations (in this case, probably three) randomly arose, and these happened to have the effect of keeping the lactase gene switched on. And just as in Europe, these mutations were favored by natural selection and quickly spread through dairy-dependent populations.



So are you saying that 3 mutations to this gene or that 3 people got such a mutation?

The 3 mutations

>So are you saying that 3 mutations to this gene or that 3 people got such a mutation?

The way I'm reading this article, there were 3 individuals that had the mutation. This would support the idea of a "convergent evolution" in this context.

Would you like to explain this?

Evolution predicts that mutations are accumulated and passed down, but organisms can miraculously restore their DNA several generations AFTER a mutation has occurred.

“Here we show that Arabidopsis plants homozygous for recessive mutant alleles of the organ fusion gene HOTHEAD5 (HTH) can inherit allele-specific DNA sequence information that was not present in the chromosomal genome of their parents but was present in previous generations. This previously undescribed process is shown to occur at all DNA sequence polymorphisms examined and therefore seems to be a general mechanism for extra-genomic inheritance of DNA sequence information. We postulate that these genetic restoration events are the result of a template-directed process that makes use of an ancestral RNA-sequence cache.”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7032/abs/nature03380.html

“Here, we show that a rice triploid and diploid hybridization resulted in stable diploid progenies, both in genotypes and phenotypes, through gene homozygosity. Furthermore, their gene homozygosity can be inherited through 8 generations, and they can convert DNA sequences of other rice varieties into their own. Molecular-marker examination confirmed that this type of genome-wide gene conversion occurred at a very high frequency. Possible mechanisms, including RNA-templated repair of double-strand DNA, are discussed.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17502903?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA

I predict that you will state the organism 'decided' that the niche it was going to fill wasn't the niche it should fill afterall.

When and if you guys ever come up with something more scientific, let us know.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

>So are you saying that 3 mutations to this gene or that 3 people got such a mutation?

The way I'm reading this article, there were 3 individuals that had the mutation. This would support the idea of a "convergent evolution" in this context.

Re: The 3 mutations

Akg41470,

I am sorry, but I have not read the article yet. I am going to try to find time this weekend. Does it say what the genetic difference is between lactose intolerant people and other people. I know it says that a gene turns off the protein produced to process lactose, but does it say what is the difference in the gene? One base pair? 5? 10?

Just wondering if you knew? I will try to look for myself this weekend.

Joe