HOX Mutations and Evolution

[sub_zer0]

For the totality of evolution and not just the small changes of evolution (which is Creationism) to be scientifically observed within the interpretation framework of the Homeobox (Hox) development-regulating genes we would need to observe adding new information to the genes which hasn't been, not just producing a fruit fly leg where a fruit fly head should be as is observed.

And, yes even with insertions, deletions, recombinations that you appeal as 'new information', really is quite the opposite from what is needed in genetics for evolution to be feasible, what evolutionists appeal to (HOX genes) will not change an organism into anything other than that same organism.

Why? I will provide an easy to follow example.

If a fruit fly's DNA in its totality and for simplicity is only, "A B C", how could for example a Hox gene mutation or any mutation for that matter make the DNA read-out anything other than the limited possibilities of re-arranging, deleting, inserting the original, "A B C"?

It couldn't! There is limited possibility of this change because it only has the original DNA to work with! That is my whole point.

Even though you say small changes equal big changes, the point, other than large changes have not been directly observed by science as small changes, is there can only be small changes, or changes within only the fruit fly's genome, which is, "A, B, C".

That is why I am saying you must have a natural process to account for the increase of DNA to change a fly into something much greater and more complex as evolution predicts.

For example if something was observed adding a "D" to a genome, would make the original fruit flys DNA genome change dramatically in its possibility of more possibilities and thus more complex opportunities to evolve into something vastly more complex.

Building upon the existing DNA is impoprtant to evolution, because without it you are severely limited to change a primate to a man, the only change you will see and what is observed today is within the created kind.

David DeWitt, who holds a B.S. in biochemistry and a Ph.D. in neuroscience, has this to say:
Successful macro-evolution requires the addition of NEW information and NEW genes that produce NEW proteins that are found in New organs and systems.
("Hox Hype: Has Macro-evolution been Proven?" Creation Matters, Jan./Feb. 2002)
Also to address examples of Drosophila and the like via Hox gene manipulations, Dr Christian Schwabe from the Medical University of South Carolina (Dept. of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology), wrote:
Control genes like homeotic genes may be the target of mutations that would conceivably change phenotypes, but one must remember that, the more central one makes changes in a complex system, the more severe the peripheral consequences become. … Homeotic changes induced in Drosophila genes have led only to monstrosities, and most experimenters do not expect to see a bee arise from their Drosophila constructs.
(Schwabe, C., 1994. Theoretical limitations of molecular phylogenetics and the evolution of relaxins. Comp. Biochem. Physiol.107B:167–177).
Dr. Christian Schwabe does an excellent job summarizing it for me with this statement, "most experimenters do not expect to see a bee arise from their Drosophila constructs."

With that in mind, and if we can turn to the fly example again. The fly will always be a fly, because it only has the unique fly DNA of, "A, B, C". Through mutations and what we scientifically observe today is the variation caused. Until there is a scientifically observed natural process that actually adds to the DNA genome nothing will change the fruit fly into anything else.

Where am I wrong in thinking this? Where are the documented scientifically observed examples of a Hox mutation causing an amphibian to turn into a reptile as evolution predicts, and not monstrosities or variation within the created fly as creationism predicts?

[steveksux]

What a surprise, someone still doesn't get it. If DNA just consists of A, B, C then people ARE identical to fruit flies genetically. Only you have the letters wrong, and there are 4 of them. ABC that mutates into ACB is a change and new information if that combination didn't exist before, and is all that Evolution requires. The different combinations of letters code for different proteins. New combinations=new proteins that did not exist previously = new information, may function better or worse than the old proteins. Improvements are more likely to help the organism survive to pass that new combination to its offspring. Improvements can result in the previously adequate versions of the proteins becoming extinct. Certainly deleterious changes are unlikely to survive very many generations. There you have it. Still a primate. Not quite the same primate that came before it. Isolate those primates from ones who didn't get that gene, or develop the better gene after the population has split in two, you are on the road to new species, millions of years, many generations and mutations down the road.


Your ridiculously oversimplified idea that there are only so many combinations of ABC out there falls apart because you ignore the fact that DNA sequences for an organism, even for a gene, are significantly longer than 3 letters in length, not by just a lot, by a lot of orders of magnitude. A hearty Duh to you, sir. :p

Dismissed.

Randy

[sub_zer0]

What a surprise, someone still doesn't get it. If DNA just consists of A, B, C then people ARE identical to fruit flies genetically. Only you have the letters wrong, and there are 4 of them. ABC that mutates into ACB is a change and new information if that combination didn't exist before, and is all that Evolution requires. The different combinations of letters code for different proteins. New combinations=new proteins that did not exist previously = new information, may function better or worse than the old proteins. Improvements are more likely to help the organism survive to pass that new combination to its offspring. Improvements can result in the previously adequate versions of the proteins becoming extinct. Certainly deleterious changes are unlikely to survive very many generations. There you have it. Still a primate. Not quite the same primate that came before it. Isolate those primates from ones who didn't get that gene, or develop the better gene after the population has split in two, you are on the road to new species, millions of years, many generations and mutations down the road.

As I just said, those recombinations are only within the fruit fly genome, nothing outside of it. So it will only change into different fruit flys. Your point is invalid because it doesn't account for the massive increase of complex DNA needed to change amphibian to reptile.

How could a fruit fly change into anything other than a fruit fly with the same genome of three letters? Don't appeal to time again like they all do, give me a scientifically observed HOX mutation that has made the change as evolution predicts.

Until then, you have nothing, never had anything because creationism is what is observed, not small changes of evolution.

Your ridiculously oversimplified idea that there are only so many combinations of ABC out there falls apart because you ignore the fact that DNA sequences for an organism, even for a gene, are significantly longer than 3 letters in length, not by just a lot, by a lot of orders of magnitude. A hearty Duh to you, sir. :p

Dismissed.

Randy

What don't you get about only variation within a created kind is observed in scientific observations of mutations today? Where do you see a HOX gene mutation turning a amphibian into a reptile like evolution needs?

Point is, EVOLUTION in its totality isn't observed through HOX mutations, and you nowhere refuted that.

[Meek Heir]

If a fruit fly's DNA in its totality and for simplicity is only, "A B C", how could for example a Hox gene mutation or any mutation for that matter make the DNA read-out anything other than the limited possibilities of re-arranging, deleting, inserting the original, "A B C"?

A) Every species has the same four bases. If that is your argument (creating new bases) then you are just wrong and not worth talking to.

B) If we assume that you mean to have those letters as genes (A bad idea if we get into very complex biology, but sufficient for these purposes) then I will show you my own analogy:

A fly has only the genes ABC.
A mutation occurs.
Now the fly has Genes ABCC.
This is called duplication. It happens in real species.
A mutation occurs.
Now the fly has ABCD. At this point the fly stops being a fruit fly (maybe).
This could be a point transmutation, a translation, or a deletion. It happens in real species.
A mutation occurs.
Now the fly has AABCD.
Duplication again.
A mutation occurs.
Now the Fly has AEBCD. At this point the fly stops being a fly (maybe).

[FlyingGuineapig]

Simple question: What's the hox gene/DNA which makes humans unique? (e.g. different from apes). If there are creationists researching this, it would obviously be the first thing they'd try to find, otherwise what's the point.

[sub_zer0]

A) Every species has the same four bases. If that is your argument (creating new bases) then you are just wrong and not worth talking to.

That isn't what I am talking about. Where did I mention that?

B) If we assume that you mean to have those letters as genes (A bad idea if we get into very complex biology, but sufficient for these purposes) then I will show you my own analogy:

A fly has only the genes ABC.
A mutation occurs.
Now the fly has Genes ABCC.
This is called duplication. It happens in real species.

OK, but still doesn't add anything NEW to the existing fruit fly DNA of, "ABC." I know that is duplication, but isn't adding anything new to what was already there, there are no new letters or information added to it. Nothing more complex can come out of it other than its original possibilities based on what we know was its original DNA.

A mutation occurs.
Now the fly has ABCD. At this point the fly stops being a fruit fly (maybe).
This could be a point transmutation, a translation, or a deletion. It happens in real species.

Wrong, a mutation has never been scientifically observed to add information that wasn't previously there. It doesn't add anything NEW to the existing DNA, that has never been scientifically observed.

A mutation occurs.
Now the fly has AABCD.
Duplication again.
A mutation occurs.
Now the Fly has AEBCD. At this point the fly stops being a fly (maybe).

Nope, never been observed that "E" or "D", in essence NEW information, being added to an organism.

[Craig]

Sub Zero, this is a fundamentally dishonest argument on your part. It's dishonest because you deliberately ignore the parts of other people's arguments that undermine your own. If you want to play word games, we can simply say that evolution doesn't require new information to occur. End of story.

[sub_zer0]

Sub Zero, this is a fundamentally dishonest argument on your part. It's dishonest because you deliberately ignore the parts of other people's arguments that undermine your own. If you want to play word games, we can simply say that evolution doesn't require new information to occur. End of story.

Where have I said, "there hasn't been any observation on my part"? I haven't, what I have said is this, "there hasn't been any SCIENTIFIC observation of what is being described."

It isn't me ignoring the parts, it is science proving them wrong through unobserved things they say happen to the genome. And it isn't as simple as word games, however evolution does need new information to occur.

So, I ask again to Meek Hairs post about somehow a mutation has added new information, increasing the genome to "ABCD", how, when and on what was that scientifically observed?

[steveksux]

As I just said, those recombinations are only within the fruit fly genome, nothing outside of it. Of COURSE NEW COMBINATIONS ARE OUTSIDE THE EXISTING GENOME. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the word new (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/new), as in not existing previously.
So it will only change into different fruit flys. Your point is invalid because it doesn't account for the massive increase of complex DNA needed to change amphibian to reptile.That's why it takes millions of years to accomplish, one change at a time.

How could a fruit fly change into anything other than a fruit fly with the same genome of three letters? Don't appeal to time again like they all do, give me a scientifically observed HOX mutation that has made the change as evolution predicts.If you're unable to figure out that there are FOUR letters in the genome, not three, after being told this numerous times, I think its simply beyond your simple understanding of the world. :lol: Its little wonder you prefer simplistic myths and magic to reality.

Until then, you have nothing, never had anything because creationism is what is observed, not small changes of evolution.At least I can count to FOUR :laughter: :laughter: :laughter: :laughter: :laughter: :shock:
What don't you get about only variation within a created kind is observed in scientific observations of mutations today? Where do you see a HOX gene mutation turning a amphibian into a reptile like evolution needs?You mean like chimps and man descended from the "Kind" called Primate? Got it. You don't get it..... :lol: won't get it is more likely.

Point is, EVOLUTION in its totality isn't observed through HOX mutations, and you nowhere refuted that.Strawman. Atoms have never been observed either. That's the beauty of science.

Randy

[Craig]

Where have I said, "there hasn't been any observation on my part"? I haven't, what I have said is this, "there hasn't been any SCIENTIFIC observation of what is being described."

I'm not sure whom you're responding to since I never stated anything about observation

It isn't me ignoring the parts, it is science proving them wrong through unobserved things they say happen to the genome. And it isn't as simple as word games, however evolution does need new information to occur.

So, I ask again to Meek Hairs post about somehow a mutation has added new information, increasing the genome to "ABCD", how, when and on what was that scientifically observed?

Yes you are playing word games. It has been explained to you quite clearly how it works, and yet you continue to insist that evolution cannot happen because of some arbitrary necessity that you created. You know how God can't be judged in human terms? Evolution cannot be judged on your terms either.

I will explain one final time. All organisms are composed of either DNA or RNA. The fundamental components of both of these are Adenine, Guanine, Cytosine, Thymine, and in some cases, Uracil. Every single gene is just a strip of DNA with these organic chemicals arranged in a complex sequence. No matter how simple or complicated the thing that the gene or genes code for, all genes are made up of these same nucleotides. "New genetic information" can only come about from the number and sequence of these nucleotides. In other words, the difference between the DNA coding for a fish's brain and our brain is the number and sequence of nucleotides, and by extension, the number and sequence of genes, which are simply nucleotide combinations, but otherwise there is no difference between the DNA for either one. There aren't any extra genetic "building blocks" that we have for our brains that are lacking for the coding for fish brains. But, what's more, there are free floating nucleotides out there- sort of like extra building blocks, if you will. These can come from a variety of sources, including food. Thus, since you have more building blocks, and every genetic characteristic imaginable can be constructed from these building blocks, you have the capacity for new genetic information.

As for the mechanisms behind mutations and the like, that is best left to the experts: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html#mutation. Suffice to say, however, I have destroyed your argument about there being "no new information". Let's recap:

1) All genetic information is coded by a few different nucleotides. New information comes about from the number and sequence of nucleotides pairings- that's it.

2) There are free floating nucleotides; therefore, objections that we don't have extra building blocks to assemble new genetic information are wrong.

I have explained all of this as clearly as possible. Not only have I indicated what new genetic material is constructed of, and that we have access to these building blocks from external sources, but I also provided an explanation for the mechanisms that lead to evolution vis-a-vis mutation. In other words, unless you don't understand what I've written here, there's no reason for you to continue with this line of argument.

[sub_zer0]

Of COURSE NEW COMBINATIONS ARE OUTSIDE THE EXISTING GENOME. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the word new (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/new), as in not existing previously. That's why it takes millions of years to accomplish, one change at a time.

You don't understand what I am saying... You have to figure in the original DNA of the fruit fly and what it is after a mutation.

I am saying no new information was added to, "ABC", there is no "D" being added, just recombining the "ABC".

If you're unable to figure out that there are FOUR letters in the genome, not three, after being told this numerous times, I think its simply beyond your simple understanding of the world. :lol: Its little wonder you prefer simplistic myths and magic to reality.

That is not where I am getting at. If "ABC" is mutated then becomes, "ABCC", that is not what I am getting at, that only is the small changes we scientifically observe, it is severely limited compared to what evolution needs. What I am getting at, is the change needed for evolution in its totality to be observed, is from "ABC" to "ABCD", that would indeed give evolution what is needed to make something as complex as a reptile from an amphibian.

[sub_zer0]

REPLY TO THIS ONE:

Yes you are playing word games. It has been explained to you quite clearly how it works, and yet you continue to insist that evolution cannot happen because of some arbitrary necessity that you created. You know how God can't be judged in human terms? Evolution cannot be judged on your terms either.

What is wrong in thinking that evolution would be able to produce vastly more complex biological systems by adding to the existing DNA (ABCD) and truely creating new information with an addition "D", instead of just recombining it, as in, "ABCC"?

I will explain one final time. All organisms are composed of either DNA or RNA. The fundamental components of both of these are Adenine, Guanine, Cytosine, Thymine, and in some cases, Uracil. Every single gene is just a strip of DNA with these organic chemicals arranged in a complex sequence. No matter how simple or complicated the thing that the gene or genes code for, all genes are made up of these same nucleotides.

I know.

"New genetic information" can only come about from the number and sequence of these nucleotides. In other words, the difference between the DNA coding for a fish's brain and our brain is the number and sequence of nucleotides, and by extension, the number and sequence of genes, which are simply nucleotide combinations, but otherwise there is no difference between the DNA for either one.

But there is actually difference and in that difference lies within specifically the DNA coding chain for a fishes brain. Take the view of the entirety of the DNA sequence with the nucleotides included. You said it yourself, "the number and sequence of genes", and that in of itself is unique when compared to all other things and is what gives the fish a fishes brain.

Now take that long DNA gene sequence for a fish brain, do you really think that with only that sequence, you can get a human brain?

Science has not observed the adding to the DNA sequence of genes that makes a fishes brain anything other than a fishes brain. Or, in the case of the Drosphilia fly and HOX mutation, which you have failed to address repeatedly, nothing has changed the fly into anything else.

But, what's more, there are free floating nucleotides out there- sort of like extra building blocks, if you will. These can come from a variety of sources, including food. Thus, since you have more building blocks, and every genetic characteristic imaginable can be constructed from these building blocks, you have the capacity for new genetic information.

Every genetic characterisitc is imaginable through those building blocks but when looking at the entire gene sequence of a fish brain, there is no process observed that adds to it.

You appealing to the four same nucleotides for all things means nothing, because the fish brain gene sequence is unique and nothing has been seen to add anything other than what was already there to make the fish brain.

Let's recap:

1) All genetic information is coded by a few different nucleotides. New information comes about from the number and sequence of nucleotides pairings- that's it.

2) There are free floating nucleotides; therefore, objections that we don't have extra building blocks to assemble new genetic information are wrong.

I have explained all of this as clearly as possible. Not only have I indicated what new genetic material is constructed of, and that we have access to these building blocks from external sources, but I also provided an explanation for the mechanisms that lead to evolution vis-a-vis mutation. In other words, unless you don't understand what I've written here, there's no reason for you to continue with this line of argument.

1) I know, but you are forgetting how a fish brain is trapped within the gene sequence coding of a fish brain.

2) It doesn't matter that there are the same nucleotides, ultimately it is the gene sequence in its entirety that I am speaking about.

Talk Origins mentions this word about a hundred times in that link, alleles which are; "variation of the same gene," exactly as creationism predicts.

That variation is usually either due to mutations or recombination, which one of thos has turned a fish to an amphibian? When has that been observed?

[mataj]

*** sigh **** For the xxx th time: Evolution is not linear. Small change in genes does not necessarily mean small change in organism, and big change in genes does not necessarily mean big change in organism. It can also be the other way around.

Theese biochemistry doctors of yours obviously do not have much clue about alorithms and information theory. They depict evolution as a sort of gradient optimization process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gradient_descent *), which is a way oversimplified.

___________________________________________
x is gene sequence, and F(x) is organism's fitness. F(x) is not even differentiable here.

[Strel]

*

Theese biochemistry doctors of yours obviously do not have much clue about alorithms and information theory. They depict evolution as a sort of gradient optimization process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gradient_descent *), which is a way oversimplified.

___________________________________________
x is gene sequence, and F(x) is organism's fitness. F(x) is not even differentiable here.



It is just another version of a general straw man version of evolution that they present. Creatonists are liars of the highest magnitude.


One would think sub-zero would tire of being embarassed on a daily basis, but then that would require rational thought.

[Meek Heir]

OK, but still doesn't add anything NEW to the existing fruit fly DNA of, "ABC." I know that is duplication, but isn't adding anything new to what was already there, there are no new letters or information added to it. Nothing more complex can come out of it other than its original possibilities based on what we know was its original DNA.

New, different genes are created all the time. If you take a gene, and then that gene has a point mutation, a translation, or a deletion it will be a different gene. It will code different protiens, it will not be the same gene. Give me a flies DNA in individual bases, and using only mutations which we have observed in nature I can make a human genetic code.

[steveksux]

You don't understand what I am saying... You have to figure in the original DNA of the fruit fly and what it is after a mutation.

I am saying no new information was added to, "ABC", there is no "D" being added, just recombining the "ABC".



That is not where I am getting at. If "ABC" is mutated then becomes, "ABCC", that is not what I am getting at, that only is the small changes we scientifically observe, it is severely limited compared to what evolution needs. What I am getting at, is the change needed for evolution in its totality to be observed, is from "ABC" to "ABCD", that would indeed give evolution what is needed to make something as complex as a reptile from an amphibian.You just keep worshipping your Dog and ignore science. Its all right. You're going to do it anyway. :lol: Dog created the universe in 6 days. Dog will be pleased you are so faithful even in the face of facts contradicting you. All praise to the most holy Dog and his Son Sejus who died on the cross to forgive us our sins.

That I think is the heart of the problem. Most mainstream Christians worship God and read the Bible. You worship Dog, read the Bebli and think its exactly the same thing. :lol:

Randy

[Dangerrmouse]

REPLY TO THIS ONE: ...I know....

You believe you do. The rest of your post proves your belief is unfounded.

[FlyingGuineapig]

I'll repeat my simple question: What's the hox gene/DNA which makes humans unique? (e.g. different from apes), but makes humans "human". If there are creationists researching this, it would obviously be the first thing they'd try to find. If you're going to go through all this song and dance to show how each "kind" is unique, and change can only occur within a "kind", what's the DNA difference between a you and a Gibbon, but that's common to all members of the "kind" human?

[sub_zer0]

New, different genes are created all the time. If you take a gene, and then that gene has a point mutation, a translation, or a deletion it will be a different gene. It will code different protiens, it will not be the same gene. Give me a flies DNA in individual bases, and using only mutations which we have observed in nature I can make a human genetic code.

And science has been able to do this? If so point to a paper or an expirement where the scientist took the fly DNA and then mutated into the human genetic code.

[Meek Heir]

And science has been able to do this? If so point to a paper or an expirement where the scientist took the fly DNA and then mutated into the human genetic code.

That would be gene therapy of an insane level. There are millions (billions?) or bases in a human DNA strand. The process to manipulate bases at an individual level is long and hard if you want specific changes. I mean, that if you give me written letters for bases of the entire Fly DNA sequence and the entire human DNA sequence that I can turn either one into the other, using only mutations those types of mutations that occur in nature.

[sub_zer0]

That would be gene therapy of an insane level. There are millions (billions?) or bases in a human DNA strand. The process to manipulate bases at an individual level is long and hard if you want specific changes. I mean, that if you give me written letters for bases of the entire Fly DNA sequence and the entire human DNA sequence that I can turn either one into the other, using only mutations those types of mutations that occur in nature.

Do you not see the problem in relying on something that hasn't been observed by science?

[Dangerrmouse]

Do you not see the problem in relying on something that hasn't been observed by science?

Do you not see Randy's deft point using your own three letter analogy, which highlights the fact that rearranging the order of the three letter sequence makes for an entirely different animal without the need for new information being added. doG worship anyone?

[steveksux]

Do you not see Randy's deft point using your own three letter analogy, which highlights the fact that rearranging the order of the three letter sequence makes for an entirely different animal without the need for new information being added. doG worship anyone?Well, I did spell Bibel wrong, Bebli was a typo... ;) But not to worry, almighty Dog loves a poor speller that praises Sejus and will forgive us our snis and poor spelling. Good works and good spelling are not enough to guarantee you'll go to Heaven. You must accept Sejus as your personal savior.

Praise Dog, Sejus and the Holy Ghots. Baaaaaa.

Randy

[steveksux]

Do you not see the problem in relying on something that hasn't been observed by science?Atoms, gravity, subatomic particles, electrons, quantum mechanics are all things that can be proven to exist without being observed. Nobody has ever observed nuclei fuse nor split. Nobody has directly observed brain waves. There are many ways besides direct observation to prove things.

If you really want to use that standard, then prove creation happened. Nobody observed that either. Suddenly direct observation is not so important... :rolleyes: Its great as long as you can use it as a double standard that doesn't apply to you and your arguments. Nobody has ever observed physical constants such as radioactive decay rates change, but that doesn't stop you from proposing it to suit your psuedoscientific nonsense in an attempt to explain away the mountains of proof that the earth is older than 6000 years. Can't even come up with a reasonable mechanism to accomplish it. All of a sudden "magic" becomes an acceptable answer for unobserved, unjustified, imaginary effects that have never been observed and just so happen to violate physical laws of the universe to boot.

Randy

[neo of the mind]

Here's what some muslims say about mutations.

http://www.allaahuakbar.net/ATHEIST/evolution/12.htm

Here is what some muslims say about evolution in general.

http://www.allaahuakbar.net/ATHEIST/evolution/


Despite what it may seem, there are people other than Christians of a different religion that are skeptical of evolution. Maybe some forum members can take a break at making fun of Jesus and poke some jokes at Allah and muhammad or would that not be politically correct on this forum?

[dittohead not!]

Ah, yes, another attempt to discredit evolutionary theory in order to substitute the young Earth, Genesis as actual history argument. A futile attempt, but an attempt nonetheless.

If you don't want to accept the idea of random changes in DNA, why not look into guided changes in DNA, just like guided and gradual changes in the machines we all take for granted today?

Once more, there is no conflict between evolution and creation. Evolution neither proves nor denies the idea of God.

And God won't punish you for believing what is plainly factual, so you can quit the mental gymnastics. Neither doublethink not newthink are necessary to get into Heaven.

[sub_zer0]

If you don't want to accept the idea of random changes in DNA, why not look into guided changes in DNA, just like guided and gradual changes in the machines we all take for granted today?

I fully accept the idea of random changes in DNA. But for thos to actually change a primate to man, it has never been observed by science.

And God won't punish you for believing what is plainly factual, so you can quit the mental gymnastics. Neither doublethink not newthink are necessary to get into Heaven.

What is so factual about an amphibian turning into a reptile, which is something that has not been observed by science?

Atoms, gravity, subatomic particles, electrons, quantum mechanics are all things that can be proven to exist without being observed. Nobody has ever observed nuclei fuse nor split. Nobody has directly observed brain waves. There are many ways besides direct observation to prove things.

Which is why, when dealing with origins, something so important to all people, you should rely on things that have been observed, or observational science.

If you really want to use that standard, then prove creation happened. Nobody observed that either. Suddenly direct observation is not so important... :rolleyes: Its great as long as you can use it as a double standard that doesn't apply to you and your arguments.

Actually, creation was observed and is documented.

All of a sudden "magic" becomes an acceptable answer for unobserved, unjustified, imaginary effects that have never been observed and just so happen to violate physical laws of the universe to boot.

Randy

You just summed up my argument against you... lol

[Alvin T. Grey]

Actually, creation was observed and is documented.
Now if we could only find someone who is qualified to do a peer review of God.......

[Dangerrmouse]

Now if we could only find someone who is qualified to do a peer review of God.......

Well. I am the Devil's representative on Earth, but I must confess that the duties have mainly been ceremonial for quite some time...... :angel: ;)

[dittohead not!]

I fully accept the idea of random changes in DNA. But for thos to actually change a primate to man, it has never been observed by science.



What is so factual about an amphibian turning into a reptile, which is something that has not been observed by science?

Except, of course, through the fossil record that goes back way past 6,000 years.


Which is why, when dealing with origins, something so important to all people, you should rely on things that have been observed, or observational science.

Yes, that would be a good idea. Science is a lot more reliable than mythology.

Actually, creation was observed and is documented.

Do you mean by the Iroquois?

http://www.cs.williams.edu/~lindsey/myths/myths_12.html

[steveksux]

Here's what some muslims say about mutations.

http://www.allaahuakbar.net/ATHEIST/evolution/12.htm

Here is what some muslims say about evolution in general.

http://www.allaahuakbar.net/ATHEIST/evolution/


Despite what it may seem, there are people other than Christians of a different religion that are skeptical of evolution. Maybe some forum members can take a break at making fun of Jesus and poke some jokes at Allah and muhammad or would that not be politically correct on this forum?Jesus knows evolution is true. Nobody's making fun of Jesus. Nobody's making fun of mainstream Christians either. Even the Pope and Catholics have no problem with evolution. They're not exactly progressive.

Randy

[Strel]

Mid-thread summary:

Creationism is a ludicrous, baseless, false belief that is utterly contradicted by known facts.

Truth is not a motivation for those arguing in favor of Creationism. They would rather believe in a lie than the uncomfortable truth (for them) that Genesis is not literally true.

Their attacks on evolution are laughable. Their adherence to mythology over reality is bewildering. Their willingness to remain ignorant and to engage in dishonesty in debate is reprehensible.

Just to sum up.

[Meek Heir]

Do you not see the problem in relying on something that hasn't been observed by science?

What I am talking about is using observed processes to create human DNA out of Fly DNA. It would take hundreds of years for humans to do the actual work.

But anyone who actualy understands DNA and mutations (not you) can see that it is possible.

[neo of the mind]

Mid-thread summary:

Creationism is a ludicrous, baseless, false belief that is utterly contradicted by known facts.

Truth is not a motivation for those arguing in favor of Creationism. They would rather believe in a lie than the uncomfortable truth (for them) that Genesis is not literally true.

Their attacks on evolution are laughable. Their adherence to mythology over reality is bewildering. Their willingness to remain ignorant and to engage in dishonesty in debate is reprehensible.

Just to sum up.


Rom 1:17-21

17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen , being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
KJV


These four things encompass the whole of this debate and why it can not be resolved.

[Strel]

Yeah thanks, but I've already read the Bible. Have you studied biology?

Rom 1:17-21

17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

And how is believing in the truth of the world denying such faith? People who tell you that understanding science is treason to God are lying scumbags.

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;


19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen , being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:[/b]

I completely agree. Lying Creationists have no excuse for their sins. One can only hope that God will punish them for their falsehoods.

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; [B]but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
KJV

I didn't see anywhere in the above text where God requires people to believe in lies, ignore evidence, and to propagate lies themselves.

These four things encompass the whole of this debate and why it can not be resolved.

Ignorance and slavish adherence to mythology in contradiction to known facts are the reasons this debate cannot be resolved.

Millions of Christians resolved this "conflict" a long time ago. What's your excuse?

[dittohead not!]

[QUOTE=Strel]Yeah thanks, but I've already read the Bible. Have you studied biology?QUOTE]

or anthropology or paleontology? How about the scientific method? That one is usually covered in elementary school. What did you enter in the science fair?

[neo of the mind]

Since you have read the Bible, you must have read this.



2 Cor 4:4

4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
KJV

[neo of the mind]

[QUOTE=Strel]Yeah thanks, but I've already read the Bible. Have you studied biology?QUOTE]

or anthropology or paleontology? How about the scientific method? That one is usually covered in elementary school. What did you enter in the science fair?


How immature.

[neo of the mind]

Yeah thanks, but I've already read the Bible. Have you studied biology?

Yes, I have studied biology about as much as you have studied the Bible.

And how is believing in the truth of the world denying such faith? People who tell you that understanding science is treason to God are lying scumbags.

I have yet to read anyone say that understanding science or attempts to do so are treason to God...can you link to that quote from anyone or is this just more exaggerated arguments.

I completely agree. Lying Creationists have no excuse for their sins. One can only hope that God will punish them for their falsehoods.
Do you believe in God?


I didn't see anywhere in the above text where God requires people to believe in lies, ignore evidence, and to propagate lies themselves.
Neither did I see that in the quote, what makes you assume that?


Ignorance and slavish adherence to mythology in contradiction to known facts are the reasons this debate cannot be resolved.

That's your opinion and I gave mine.

Millions of Christians resolved this "conflict" a long time ago. What's your excuse?

Resolved what conflict? As far as I know, all Christians believe that they and everything else was created by God.

[Strel]

Since you have read the Bible, you must have read this.



2 Cor 4:4

4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
KJV


Yes, I have. I am particularly a fan of the stuff written in red in the second half of the Bible. Good stuff, that is, even if most of it is plagiarized from pre-existing relgions.

Again, your Bible quote is not relevant. Where in the Bible are you instructed to ignore the truth?

The idea that understanding science means you can't be a Christian is a malicious Creationist lie. One of these days you will wake up and realize that, and that they have been lying to you about a lot of other things as well. You won't stop being a Christian that day, but you will stop being a sucker.

[Strel]

Yes, I have studied biology about as much as you have studied the Bible.

I wouldn't be so sure of that if I were you. I went to Sunday School every week for twenty years like most good Christians. :)

I have yet to read anyone say that understanding science or attempts to do so are treason to God...can you link to that quote from anyone or is this just more exaggerated arguments.

Yes, just read sub_zero's comments in any of the many threads around here. It is a common Creationist lie to try and link evolution with atheism.


Do you believe in God?

That depends on what you mean by God. I will say that I am not an atheist.
My beliefs in that realm tend more toward Eastern interpretations, Taoism in particular.

Neither did I see that in the quote, what makes you assume that?

Then for what purpose do you quote these passages?

Resolved what conflict? As far as I know, all Christians believe that they and everything else was created by God.

And how is this contradicted by an understanding of the facts of evolution?

[dittohead not!]

[QUOTE=dittohead not!]


How immature.

Now, there's a brilliant reparte. Couldn't think of any relevant Bible passages to quote, huh? And just what did you enter in the elementary school science fair?

[neo of the mind]

Yes, I have. I am particularly a fan of the stuff written in red in the second half of the Bible. Good stuff, that is, even if most of it is plagiarized from pre-existing relgions.

What you consider plagerism may be due to the fact that there are universal standards.

Again, your Bible quote is not relevant. Where in the Bible are you instructed to ignore the truth?

My quote is relevant and nowhere did I say the Bible instructs people to ignore truth. You are putting words in my mouth that I did not say or convey with any post.

The idea that understanding science means you can't be a Christian is a malicious Creationist lie. One of these days you will wake up and realize that, and that they have been lying to you about a lot of other things as well. You won't stop being a Christian that day, but you will stop being a sucker

Again, my comments have never said that understanding of science makes you a non Christian and I have yet to read that anywhere from any other Christian. Dude, I woke up and stopped being a fool when I became a Christian.

[Lumpen Prole]

I haven't read through the entire thread, so I'm sure what I am about to say has been said already...

There are four nucleotide base pairs that make up the DNA of all organisms: adenine, thymine, cytosine, and guanine. They are commonly abbreviated to A, T, C, and G. The sequence of these four nucleotide bases determines the subsequent RNA sequence. RNA codes for a specific amino acid sequence. Amino acids are what proteins are made of. So, a different DNA sequence means a different RNA sequence, meaning that you'll get a different sequence of amino acids and therefore a different protein.

In short, even a small change in DNA sequence can result in a completely new protein with a new function. It could also mean the same basic protein with a different function.

And if anyone is interested in how Hox genes work, I just received this link from the Evolution and Zoology group at UW-Madison:

snip

In 1894, the English biologist William Bateson challenged Darwin's view that evolution was gradual. He published Materials for the Study of Variation, a catalog of abnormalities he had observed in insects and animals in which one body part was replaced with another. He described, for example, a mutant fly with a leg instead of an antenna on its head, and mutant frogs and humans with extra vertebrae. The abnormalities Bateson discovered resisted explanation for much of the twentieth century. But in the late 1970s, studies by Edward Lewis at the California Institute of Technology, Christiana Nüsslein-Vollhard and Eric Wieschaus in Germany, and others began to reveal that the abnormalities were caused by mutations of a special set of genes in fruit fly embryos that controlled development of the fly's body and the distribution of its attached appendages. Very similar genes, exercising similar controls, were subsequently found in nematodes, flies, fish, mice, and human beings.

What they and others discovered were genes that regulate the development of the embryo and exert control over other genes by mechanisms analogous to that of the repressor molecule studied by Monod and Jacob. Eight of these controlling genes, called Hox genes, are found in virtually all animals —worms, mice, and human beings— and they have existed for more than half a billion years.[2] Fruit flies and worms have only one set of eight Hox genes; fish and mammals (including mice, elephants, and humans) have four sets. Each set of Hox genes in fish and mammals is remarkably similar to the eight Hox genes found in fruit flies and worms. This discovery showed that very similar genes control both embryological and later development in virtually all insects and animals. (See Figure 1.)

To understand what Hox genes do, scientists needed to observe the activity of the genes in the developing embryos of flies and mice. Using new technologies that allowed them to observe under a microscope the locations of the Hox proteins in these embryos, they were able to identify an overall pattern of how Hox genes behave. A newly fertilized fly egg looks like a tiny football: one end, or pole, will eventually become the head region; the other end will become the tail region. These and other divisions of the embryo in later development actually followed the switching on and off of the Hox genes in different parts of the embryo. (See Figure 2.)

The mechanism that causes the Hox genes to behave in this way is initiated by the release of proteins from the cells of the mother's body across the newly fertilized embryo. These proteins control the activities of the Hox genes and are released in varying concentrations, causing Hox genes to produce Hox proteins in specific places. As the embryo grows, the production of Hox proteins divides the embryo into a series of segments, or distinct regions, from which subsequent development occurs. Other genes are then activated within each segment, a finer division of the embryo is established, and wings, antennae, and other body parts are formed. In general, scientists reasoned, Hox genes establish the basic division of the embryo into distinct compartments, and each compartment, in turn, establishes the regions of the embryo where development of specific body parts and functions takes place. Still, the details of the mechanisms that a cell uses to establish its position in the embryo remain incomplete.

In fact, Nüsslein-Vollhard and Wieschaus found that within the fly's embryo there was an overall pattern in which genes were turned on or off; and they saw in this pattern the overall body plan for the full-grown fly. In other words, the activity of the Hox genes, including the formation of compartments within the embryo and the control of other genes that guide development, provided a system of organization that dictated the final adult form of the fly.

[Lumpen Prole]

Cont.

The presence of a body plan in the genome, whether of a fly, a whale, or a human, was unexpected by embryologists. Previously, most of them did not think that development of embryos was controlled by genes; they had assumed that the different parts of developing embryos were determined by physical interaction between neighboring cells and that there was no overall division of the embryo according to a genetic plan. Experiments had shown, for example, that removing developing wing tissue from one part of an embryo and implanting it elsewhere still gave rise to a wing, although an abnormal one. Scientists attributed the abnormality to the effects of the neighboring cells in the embryo. This was wrong. In fact it was caused by the disruption of the body plan.

This new understanding of Hox genes was aided by the discovery that the proteins produced by these genes function in a way that is analogous to Monod and Jacob's repressor molecule. Specifically, although they have different properties, all Hox proteins contain a molecular structure that makes them attach to DNA sites that control genes. This meant that Hox proteins, like the repressor molecule, act as switches that turn neighboring genes on and off.[3]

Hox genes, as Carroll explains, are in fact one of many kinds of genes that direct embryo development by a mechanism of switches. One example that is not a Hox gene is the gene that controls the development of the eye in fruit flies. If this gene (called Pax 6) is damaged when it mutates, the fly fails to develop eyes. We now know from the experiments described in Carroll's book that the Pax 6 gene is also found in butterflies, mice, and humans. Indeed, Pax 6 genes are interchangeable. The Pax 6 gene from a fly will turn on genes that make eyes in mice, and the Pax 6 gene from a mouse will turn on genes that make eyes in flies.

It had long been assumed that eyes had evolved independently in different species. The structures of mammalian eyes and insect eyes are very different and it would seem most unlikely that they had followed a similar evolutionary path. Mammalian eyes, for example, have a single lens that focuses an image on the retina. Insects have eyes with many tube-like structures, each tube having its own lens and retina. Yet the discovery of the Pax 6 gene gives us reason to believe that the evolution of the eye in all the animals followed related, and to some extent common, paths, though we cannot completely exclude the possibility that each kind of eye evolved following completely independent pathways. In addition to the Pax 6 gene, genes have been found that control the genes responsible for the development of the different kinds of "hearts"—or mechanisms that pump blood—whether in fruit flies or humans, again suggesting similar evolutionary pathways. Indeed the development of legs, wings, arms, fins, and other fish and marine animal appendages are all under the control of virtually identical genes and, as with the Pax genes, in many cases are interchangeable.

snip

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18970

I strongly recommend reading it in its entirety.

[neo of the mind]

I wouldn't be so sure of that if I were you. I went to Sunday School every week for twenty years like most good Christians. :)

You not being a Christian now shows that you didn't understand what you were reading for those 20 years, if you did, you would still be a Christian.


Yes, just read sub_zero's comments in any of the many threads around here. It is a common Creationist lie to try and link evolution with atheism.

Seems like you are making a new connection that wasn't discussed.


That depends on what you mean by God. I will say that I am not an atheist.
My beliefs in that realm tend more toward Eastern interpretations, Taoism in particular.

Are you a Taoist or not? Let us know when you know what you believe in.


Then for what purpose do you quote these passages?
It wasn't for the interpretation you are stating.


And how is this contradicted by an understanding of the facts of evolution

It woudn't unless you take God from the equation.

[neo of the mind]

[QUOTE=neo of the mind]

Now, there's a brilliant reparte. Couldn't think of any relevant Bible passages to quote, huh? And just what did you enter in the elementary school science fair?

How immature.

[dittohead not!]

I haven't read through the entire thread, so I'm sure what I am about to say has been said already...

There are four nucleotide base pairs that make up the DNA of all organisms: adenine, thymine, cytosine, and guanine. They are commonly abbreviated to A, T, C, and G. The sequence of these four nucleotide bases determines the subsequent RNA sequence. RNA codes for a specific amino acid sequence. Amino acids are what proteins are made of. So, a different DNA sequence means a different RNA sequence, meaning that you'll get a different sequence of amino acids and therefore a different protein.

In short, even a small change in DNA sequence can result in a completely new protein with a new function. It could also mean the same basic protein with a different function.

And if anyone is interested in how Hox genes work, I just received this link from the Evolution and Zoology group at UW-Madison:

Fall on your knees and repent, sinner! You put your faith in man and his science instead of on the plain word of God as written in the Holy Scriptures! You are in grave danger of Hellfire and damnation unless you repent of your wicked beliefs and ask God for forgiveness. While you're ate it, maybe you can believe in the Earth as the center of the universe. That should get you some good points with the man upstairs.

Now, that was an example of an immature response. The last one was quite reasonable. ;)

[neo of the mind]

Fall on your knees and repent, sinner! You put your faith in man and his science instead of on the plain word of God as written in the Holy Scriptures! You are in grave danger of Hellfire and damnation unless you repent of your wicked beliefs and ask God for forgiveness. While you're ate it, maybe you can believe in the Earth as the center of the universe. That should get you some good points with the man upstairs.

Now, that was an example of an immature response. The last one was quite reasonable. ;)

How immature.

[Lumpen Prole]

Here's my favorite part of the article:

snip

These findings strongly support the Darwinian view that animals descend from one or a few ancestors. However, contrary to the previously accepted neo-Darwinian view, the same findings showed that different animal forms are not primarily a function of distinct gene pools that have evolved over millions of years. How then do similar collections of genes create the enormous diversity of living forms? In Sean Carroll's view, what creates diversity is the patterns in which genes are turned "on" and "off." The different appendages found in centipedes, fruit flies, lobsters, and brine shrimp are created by varying combinations of Hox gene activity in the developing insect or crustacean embryo.

"Switches," Carroll emphasizes, "enable the same...genes to be used differently in different animals" [his italics]. In other words, a Hox gene produces a protein that binds to the DNA's sites where genes copy into RNA and can thus turn genes "on" or "off."

This has an important consequence for evolution: mutations in Hox genes will affect the ways in which they act within the embryo, thereby altering the proteins' functions as switches. When the proteins' functions are changed, in turn, this causes them to control genes that are needed for development of a specific physical trait in new ways. In this view, evolution is largely the consequence of random mutations in genetic switches. Genes remain intact, but under new patterns of control. Their function is altered. Complexity and variety are created, at least in part, by combining the activities of old genes in new ways. Carroll's view—what we might call the switches hypothesis—emphasizes the importance of changes in patterns of turning genes on and off rather than changes in the genes themselves. However, even the most ardent supporter of the switches hypothesis would admit that not only Hox genes but other genes change as well. But the contribution of these changes to evolution is far less than we had previously believed.

In fact, vertebrates—reptiles, birds, chickens, mice, pythons, and humans— do have more genes than insects, though far fewer than had been expected before the human genome was revealed. The increase in the number of genes in these animals is partly responsible for their complexity and diversity. But as Carroll notes, "frogs and snakes, dinosaurs and ostriches, giraffes and whales, have evolved around a similar set of four Hox gene clusters. So again, the mere number of Hox genes does not tell us how these forms evolved." The diversity of these animals comes from changes in the ways genes are turned on and off.

For example, though the giraffe has a long neck, it has seven cervical vertebrae, the same number as humans, whales, and all other mammals. Hox genes control this number, but they may also control cell proliferation and consequently the size of the vertebrae. The giraffe's larger vertebrae may have developed because of mutations in the Hox genes controlling the size of vertebrae. Giraffes with large vertebrae and longer necks could feed off tall trees and were consequently selected over other giraffes. Changes in gene regulation, not new genes, gave rise to the long-necked giraffe.

Evolution, then, depends on new patterns of gene regulation rather than the creation of new genes. Indeed, it is not meaningful to talk about the function of a single gene in isolation. Genes only function in the context of the organism. There is no single gene for an eye, a limb, or language, much less such tendencies as homosexuality. Genes function in relation to other genes and intercellular signals, much as words vary in meaning and function depending on the way they are used in sentences and the contexts in which they are spoken. It is the combinations of gene activity, which may be different in different species, that create the form of the organism. "We can begin to think of individual groups—insects, spiders, and centipedes, or birds, mammals, and reptiles, as well as their long extinct fossil relatives—not so much in terms of their uniqueness, but as variations on a common theme," Carroll writes. And surprising, too, is the evidence that all animals, from worms to humans, probably descend from one or a few primitive bacteria. Darwin would have been pleased to discover molecular evidence for his "common descent."

snip

:angel:

[Strel]

You not being a Christian now shows that you didn't understand what you were reading for those 20 years, if you did, you would still be a Christian.

Now that's some logic for you - because I don't believe in all of it means I didn't understand it? This is not science we are talking about here, but theology. Reasonable people can differ in their interpretations, because it is not science that can be verified and validated. Attempts to equate theology with science only underscore Creationist dishonesty.

Seems like you are making a new connection that wasn't discussed.

Ask him yourself. It is a common Creationist lie.

Are you a Taoist or not? Let us know when you know what you believe in.

It is not like an on/off switch. There are aspects of Taoism that I think accurately explain the Universe and are otherwise useful to me. I feel the same way about Christianity and Buddhism. Does this make me a Christian? or a Buddhist?

Unlike most fundamentalist Christians, I do not arrogantly presume I know which is the "one true religion". That seems the height of hubris to me.

It wasn't for the interpretation you are stating.

It seems unresponsive in that case to the statements I made which led to your posting them.

It woudn't unless you take God from the equation.[/quote]

You can put him in the equation wherever you like. But if you are trying to tell me that the Earth is 6000 years old because the Bible says so, then I am going to say that you are full of ****.

[sub_zer0]

You can put him in the equation wherever you like. But if you are trying to tell me that the Earth is 6000 years old because the Bible says so, then I am going to say that you are full of ****.

What is so damaging to a 6,000 year earth?

[Strel]

What is so damaging to a 6,000 year earth?

"When you tell a lie you kill some part of of the world."

Ian Nicholson as Merlin in the John Boorman film "Exaclibur".



Because it is a lie.

[neo of the mind]

Now that's some logic for you - because I don't believe in all of it means I didn't understand it? This is not science we are talking about here, but theology. Reasonable people can differ in their interpretations, because it is not science that can be verified and validated. Attempts to equate theology with science only underscore Creationist dishonesty.

No, if you were a Christian, then you would still be one. If you were not a Christian but at some point, understood the Bible, then you would believe the Bible. If you believe the Bible, then you would be a Christian, therefore, you don't understand the Bible. Rather simple logic.

Ask him yourself. It is a common Creationist lie.

Ask who?


It is not like an on/off switch. There are aspects of Taoism that I think accurately explain the Universe and are otherwise useful to me. I feel the same way about Christianity and Buddhism. Does this make me a Christian? or a Buddhist?

No, it makes you a person that doesn't have a solid belief system in their life. You are still looking for something.

Unlike most fundamentalist Christians, I do not arrogantly presume I know which is the "one true religion". That seems the height of hubris to me.

Hubris, in your opinion, but to be a Christian, you must accept Jesus and his teaching, which he stated that the only path was through him, nothing else. This of course rules out every other religion.

It seems unresponsive in that case to the statements I made which led to your posting them.



You can put him in the equation wherever you like. But if you are trying to tell me that the Earth is 6000 years old because the Bible says so, then I am going to say that you are full of ****.

Nope, never said that the Bible states that the earth is 6,000 years old.

[Strel]

No, if you were a Christian, then you would still be one. If you were not a Christian but at some point, understood the Bible, then you would believe the Bible. If you believe the Bible, then you would be a Christian, therefore, you don't understand the Bible. Rather simple logic.

It is not logic at all. This so-called "logic" excludes several logical possibilities, and operates from some unproven presumptions. One may understand the Bible and not become a Christian. Also, you equate belief with understanding which....well that may go a long way to explaining why Creationists cannot seem to understand science, actually. :lol:

Ask who?

Sub_zero.

No, it makes you a person that doesn't have a solid belief system in their life. You are still looking for something.

On the contrary, I have several solid belief systems. :) And no, I am not looking, because I have found what I need. A piece here, a piece there. Only a fool could think that one approach has all the answers.

[b]Hubris, in your opinion, but to be a Christian, you must accept Jesus and his teaching, which he stated that the only path was through him, nothing else. This of course rules out every other religion.

Considering that Jesus borrowed heavily from proto-Hindu and other Eastern ideas, I think not. One could say that the Sermon on the Mount forms the core of his teachings - a real summary of how Jesus thinks the world should be. Funny thing is it is taken almost verbatim from pre-existing Vedic writings. What Jesus taught was not particular to Christianity.

As for the "no path except through me" - it's a great way to establish a monopoly, don't you think? Most other religions (Taoism and hinduism being notable exceptions) make similar claims. Why is this claim valid for Christianity and not for the others?

Nope, never said that the Bible states that the earth is 6,000 years old.

No, it doesn't. But some misguided souls count the "begats" and conclude that it does. Sub_zero is one of these people.

[neo of the mind]

It is not logic at all. This so-called "logic" excludes several logical possibilities, and operates from some unproven presumptions. One may understand the Bible and not become a Christian. Also, you equate belief with understanding which....well that may go a long way to explaining why Creationists cannot seem to understand science, actually. :lol:


I stand corrected. You can understand the Bible, which would reveal the truth, you then can reject that truth on your own volition.


Sub_zero.

Nobody so far has linked and pointed out any statement from him that is a lie, until then, I consider it slander to call him a liar and not a fact.

On the contrary, I have several solid belief systems. :) And no, I am not looking, because I have found what I need. A piece here, a piece there. Only a fool could think that one approach has all the answers.

I guess your a fool like the rest of us, since you, by your definition has stopped looking and have "created" a belief system a' la carte.


Considering that Jesus borrowed heavily from proto-Hindu and other Eastern ideas, I think not. One could say that the Sermon on the Mount forms the core of his teachings - a real summary of how Jesus thinks the world should be. Funny thing is it is taken almost verbatim from pre-existing Vedic writings. What Jesus taught was not particular to Christianity.

How about giving a link to these "almost" verbatim Vedic quotes.

As for the "no path except through me" - it's a great way to establish a monopoly, don't you think? Most other religions (Taoism and hinduism being notable exceptions) make similar claims. Why is this claim valid for Christianity and not for the others?

The claim is valid for the others but there can only be one truth, not multiple truths, so they are wrong.

[Strel]

I stand corrected. You can understand the Bible, which would reveal the truth, you then can reject that truth on your own volition.

Or you can understand that parts of it cannot be literally true, but believe that this in no way diminshes the message. That's what MOST Christians do!

Nobody so far has linked and pointed out any statement from him that is a lie, until then, I consider it slander to call him a liar and not a fact.

Practically everything he says is a lie. Truth is a defense to slander. if he wants to take me to court, he had better pack a lunch. And bring his checkbook.

I guess your a fool like the rest of us, since you, by your definition has stopped looking and have "created" a belief system a' la carte.

If I could only take credit for that. Sadly i did not, but I have found value in the writings of others outside of Christianity. It's too bad more Christians don't read books other than the Bible. They might learn a few things.

How about giving a link to these "almost" verbatim Vedic quotes.

Here's a start for you:
http://www.stephen-knapp.com/christianity_and_the_vedic_teachings_within_it.htm

We have seen, then, that the only difference between Christianity and Paganism is that Brahma, Ormuzd (Ahura Mazda), Zeus, Jupiter, etc., are called by another name; Krishna, Buddha, Bacchus, Adonis, Mithras, etc., have been turned into Christ Jesus: Venus’ pigeon into the Holy Ghost; Diana, Isis, Devaki, etc., into the Virgin Mary; and the demigods and heroes into saints. The exploits of the one were represented as the miracles of the other. Pagan festivals became Christian holidays, and Pagan temples became Christian Churches.

I would also suggest just about anything written by the late Joseph Campbell.

The claim is valid for the others but there can only be one truth, not multiple truths, so they are wrong.

Now that's the kind of "logic" I would expect from a religious zealot. Thanks for verifying my suspicions.

[neo of the mind]

Or you can understand that parts of it cannot be literally true, but believe that this in no way diminshes the message. That's what MOST Christians do!

Most Christians accept there are parts of the Bible that they personally will not, until they die, understand. But the acceptance of this by them does not mean that the Bible is in error.

Practically everything he says is a lie. Truth is a defense to slander. if he wants to take me to court, he had better pack a lunch. And bring his checkbook.

As a lawyer, you should know the definition of a lie, so give an accurate example of him lying, which should be easy since you say it's practically everything he says.


If I could only take credit for that. Sadly i did not, but I have found value in the writings of others outside of Christianity. It's too bad more Christians don't read books other than the Bible. They might learn a few things.

Most Christians do not study the writings of other religions, why should they? As far as books in general, you are making a exaggerated claim again.


Here's a start for you:
http://www.stephen-knapp.com/christianity_and_the_vedic_teachings_within_it.htm

We have seen, then, that the only difference between Christianity and Paganism is that Brahma, Ormuzd (Ahura Mazda), Zeus, Jupiter, etc., are called by another name; Krishna, Buddha, Bacchus, Adonis, Mithras, etc., have been turned into Christ Jesus: Venus’ pigeon into the Holy Ghost; Diana, Isis, Devaki, etc., into the Virgin Mary; and the demigods and heroes into saints. The exploits of the one were represented as the miracles of the other. Pagan festivals became Christian holidays, and Pagan temples became Christian Churches.

I would also suggest just about anything written by the late Joseph Campbell.

I'll look at your link to find the near verbatim comments.

Now that's the kind of "logic" I would expect from a religious zealot. Thanks for verifying my suspicions.

I am not as much of a zealot as I should be.

[steveksux]

Resolved what conflict? As far as I know, all Christians believe that they and everything else was created by God.Most Christians do not quibble over what tools God used to do the creating. Namely evolution in the case of the vast diversity of life on the planet..

Randy

[Strel]

I wish you would figure out how to use the quote feature.


Most Christians accept there are parts of the Bible that they personally will not, until they die, understand. But the acceptance of this by them does not mean that the Bible is in error.

And what about those parts directly contradicted by observable reality?

As a lawyer, you should know the definition of a lie, so give an accurate example of him lying, which should be easy since you say it's practically everything he says.

Like saying the earth is 6000 years old, when all evidence indicates otherwise? He has access to the evidence. It has been explained to him in enough detail that his continued insistence on a view that is demonstrably false becomes unreasonable. I believe he knows he is wrong, and does not care about the truth. Hence I believe he is a liar.

Most Christians do not study the writings of other religions, why should they? As far as books in general, you are making a exaggerated claim again.

Wow. Willful ignorance it is then. That is as bad as telling a lie.

I'll look at your link to find the near verbatim comments.

You should. You will learn that the ideas of Christianity are not exactly original.

I am not as much of a zealot as I should be.

This is going to be no fun at all if you just keep proving my points for me.

[Lumpen Prole]

Who's willing to bet that none of the resident creationists here read anything that I posted?

[Strel]

Who's willing to bet that none of the resident creationists here read anything that I posted?


I'm willing to bet they don't understand it. They may actually read it (with lips moving).

[steveksux]

Who's willing to bet that none of the resident creationists here read anything that I posted?Its arguable that they never read what they themselves post, or they'd be too embarrassed to hit the "Submit" button.

Randy

[sub_zer0]

Nobody has actually responded to my main points, how telling...

Through mutations and what we scientifically observe today is the variation we see caused in animals. We DON'T see an amphibian turning into a reptile as evolution needs, we don't see a primate turning into a man as evolution needs.

Until there is a scientifically observed natural process that actually adds to the DNA genome nothing will change the fruit fly, primate or amphibian into anything else and we will always see small changes.

Where am I wrong in thinking this? Nobody has done anything to refute this idea, only describing what DNA is.

[Lumpen Prole]

So, when has science observed this new protein being created by new information?

First of all, your idea of "new information" is bogus. Different proteins can be created with a different sequence of the four nucleotide base pairs. A, T, C, and G are the only nucleotide base pairs in DNA. Read the entire article; it's riddled with examples of how the same proteins can be used for different functions, how Hox mutations can cause phenotypic abnormalties, etc., etc., etc.

All you have to do is be willing to sit down and actually read it.

[sub_zer0]

First of all, your idea of "new information" is bogus. Different proteins can be created with a different sequence of the four nucleotide base pairs. A, T, C, and G are the only nucleotide base pairs in DNA. Read the entire article; it's riddled with examples of how the same proteins can be used for different functions, how Hox mutations can cause phenotypic abnormalties, etc., etc., etc.

All you are talking about is examples of the SAME protiens used for DIFFERENT functions. Nothing NEW has been added. You are NOT describing a process that is evolution or that produces the observations needed to say it is evolution fully.

When has the same protien that is now used for a difference function in the same organism, or phenootypic abnormalities been seen to make an amphibian a reptile as evolution needs?

How can evolution be considered possible with things that do not produce the desired result?

[Meek Heir]

Until there is a scientifically observed natural process that actually adds to the DNA genome nothing will change the fruit fly, primate or amphibian into anything else and we will always see small changes.

Surprise! There is! Now lets use the alphabet as an example.

There are four bases, these are letters.

There are amino acids, these are words.

There are genes, these are sentences.

There are organisms, these are books.

One type of mutation can cause more bases to be added. We now have an infinite possible length to our book.

Other types of mutations (three different types) can use the same four letters to create many different amino acids. These amino acids can be combined in an infinite number of combinations to create an infinite number of protiens. There are infinite numbers of protiens. (Possibly some limit based on practicality and what amino acids can combine in what ways.)

The most important thing that you need to take away from this is something you have been ignoring and denying this whole time:

Any single base can be transformed into and single other base. If I ask you to write a "new" book, you can. Because no limit on length exists and letters can be combined in an infinite number of ways there are an infinite number opf books to write.

[JoeR]

We DON'T see an amphibian turning into a reptile as evolution needs


What part of gradual changes over millions of years don't you get?

[neo of the mind]

I'm willing to bet they don't understand it. They may actually read it (with lips moving).

Why do you bother responding to us then? You have nothing but disdain for us, you think you are Einstein and we are all members of the Chris Burke fan club, but here you are, on this forum day in and day out, going toe to toe with imbeciles.

The Christians on this forum, from what I have read, have not tried to pull out a morality card on you from up on a high horse, so why do you continue with your derogatory comments? Do you have self esteem issues?

[steveksux]

All you are talking about is examples of the SAME protiens used for DIFFERENT functions. Nothing NEW has been added. You are NOT describing a process that is evolution or that produces the observations needed to say it is evolution fully.

When has the same protien that is now used for a difference function in the same organism, or phenootypic abnormalities been seen to make an amphibian a reptile as evolution needs?

How can evolution be considered possible with things that do not produce the desired result?Different sequences create different proteins. Duh. How much longer can you pretend you can't read before you think someone will notice?

Randy

[steveksux]

Why do you bother responding to us then? You have nothing but disdain for us, you think you are Einstein and we are all members of the Chris Burke fan club, but here you are, on this forum day in and day out, going toe to toe with imbeciles.

The Christians on this forum, from what I have read, have not tried to pull out a morality card on you from up on a high horse, so why do you continue with your derogatory comments? Do you have self esteem issues?Read Sub's posts. The same bogus crap refuted and repeated over and over.

Randy

[sub_zer0]

Different sequences create different proteins. Duh. How much longer can you pretend you can't read before you think someone will notice?

Randy

And this process has been observed to change a primate to a man, or an amphibian to a reptile as evolution predicts I assume as well, right?

All these different protiens, why is that all that is needed for evolution? Just different protiens and mutations do just that by creating different sequences.

The simplicity of this that you are bringing to the table is laughable Randy. The emphasis is mine for your reference as Dr. Demick, a practising pathologist, points out:
First, that the human mutation problem is bad and getting worse. Second, that it is unbalanced by any detectable positive mutations. To summarize, recent research has revealed literally tens of thousands of different mutations affecting the human genome, with a likelihood of many more yet to be characterized. These have been associated with thousands of diseases affecting every organ and tissue type in the body. In all this research, not one mutation that increased the efficiency of a genetically coded human protein has been found. Each generation has a slightly more disordered genetic constitution than the preceding one.

Surprise! There is! Now lets use the alphabet as an example.

There are four bases, these are letters.

There are amino acids, these are words.

There are genes, these are sentences.

There are organisms, these are books.

One type of mutation can cause more bases to be added. We now have an infinite possible length to our book.

The nucleotides should be evaluated as an ensemble and not exclusively in context of isolated specific genes, which is ultimately where I am getting at.

Other types of mutations (three different types) can use the same four letters to create many different amino acids. These amino acids can be combined in an infinite number of combinations to create an infinite number of protiens. There are infinite numbers of protiens. (Possibly some limit based on practicality and what amino acids can combine in what ways.)

And this natural process you are describing, it has of course been observed to change an amphibian to a reptile, right?

The point is as Dr. Jonathan Wells, a cell biologist currently at the University of Berkeley, states specifically with reference to Dawkins’ article:
But there is no evidence that DNA mutations can provide the sorts of variations needed for evolution ... The sorts of variations which can contribute to Darwinian evolution, however, involve things like bone structure or body plan. There is no evidence for beneficial mutations at the level of macroevolution, but there is also no evidence at the level of what is commonly regarded as microevolution.

How can mutations take a fish and make it a man, if mutations as a whole to a organisma are hazardous? It creates DEVOLUTION not evolution.

The most important thing that you need to take away from this is something you have been ignoring and denying this whole time:

Any single base can be transformed into and single other base. If I ask you to write a "new" book, you can. Because no limit on length exists and letters can be combined in an infinite number of ways there are an infinite number opf books to write.

The complex nature of such a process you are describing so simply, as writing a new book, is actually begging to be answered by a Designer.

[neo of the mind]

Read Sub's posts. The same bogus crap refuted and repeated over and over.

Randy

I have and they don't call for that. Have you heard, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result each time." before? I think it applies here.

[Dangerrmouse]

I somehow doubt that Dr Wells shares much in the way of theological ideas with you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Wells


"Father's words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle.

Is this his perverted idea of the scientific approach?

[Strel]

Why do you bother responding to us then? You have nothing but disdain for us, you think you are Einstein and we are all members of the Chris Burke fan club, but here you are, on this forum day in and day out, going toe to toe with imbeciles.

You don't hve to be Einstein to understand basic biology.

I also enjoy pushing people in wheelchairs down flights of stairs, if you are interested.

The Christians on this forum, from what I have read, have not tried to pull out a morality card on you from up on a high horse, so why do you continue with your derogatory comments? Do you have self esteem issues?

Uhm yes they have.

I have issues alright. I'm tired of listening to the religious right's lies and crapola. That's my issue.

My hope is that you will get annoyed enough to actually go out and do some reading, and figure out how utterly wrong you are.

It will be a lot like the movie version of neo getting popped out of his cocoon by Lawrence Fishburne. That wasn't pleasant either, was it?

[FlyingGuineapig]

I somehow doubt that Dr Wells shares much in the way of theological ideas with you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Wells


"Father's words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle.

Is this his perverted idea of the scientific approach?
Ahh, interesting article Dangermouse. I've heard mention of the "10 facts against evolution" and how they must be taught in schools, but I've never been able to get one of the anti-evolution folks to actually state what the 10 facts are. Good info.

See, even though this evolution/creationism stuff seems to get debated endlessly, I still learn something new every now and then.

[sub_zer0]

I have issues alright. I'm tired of listening to the religious right's lies and crapola. That's my issue.

My hope is that you will get annoyed enough to actually go out and do some reading, and figure out how utterly wrong you are.

Read post #72, and answer the questions I ask based on the information given in my post... Where am I wrong?

[Dangerrmouse]

That "Dr Demick" is a doozy! Luckily, he only works with dead patients...

http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/cancer.html

"Conversely, is there a creationist lens through which to view cancer biology? One may be suggested, as was previously hinted. This new knowledge may be used to extend the natural theology of the Apostle Paul, expressed through his analogy of the "body of Christ," from the macroscopic level down to the microscopic. Indeed, this may be a more accurate view of final reality, as there are to the anatomist only several thousand macroscopically visible parts of the body. The Bible tells us that the host of the redeemed will be "a great multitude, which no man could number" (Revelation 7:9). Carrying this analogy to the cellular world of our bodies produces a graphic picture of the vast gulf between good and evil.


Lawless Behavior

One needs only a slight acquaintance with the panorama of history to be dismayed by the continual succession of violence, thievery, and other forms of lawless behavior displayed by sinful humanity. The most degenerate human societies sink to ritual murder, cannibalism, and torture. These human behaviors, which have plagued the world almost from its beginning, are remarkably similar to the physiologic behaviors displayed by cancer cells."

[sub_zer0]

Typical, ridicule and mock the other side, don't produce relevant science that may contradict what I have presented.

[neo of the mind]

You don't hve to be Einstein to understand basic biology.

I also enjoy pushing people in wheelchairs down flights of stairs, if you are interested.



Uhm yes they have.

I have issues alright. I'm tired of listening to the religious right's lies and crapola. That's my issue.

My hope is that you will get annoyed enough to actually go out and do some reading, and figure out how utterly wrong you are.

It will be a lot like the movie version of neo getting popped out of his cocoon by Lawrence Fishburne. That wasn't pleasant either, was it?

Naw, what actually will happen is that I'll get annoyed enough to just stop coming to the forum due to it not being an enjoyable experience. I'm not on this forum to be a masochist for some sadist's.

[Dangerrmouse]

Typical, ridicule and mock the other side, don't produce relevant science that may contradict what I have presented.


Quoting your "expert's" own words is mockery? He is a pathologist. He works to tell what people really died of, rather than what their Doctor claimed. Like most creationist experts, he is qualified in something other than the field he is commenting on so inaccurately.

[sub_zer0]

Quoting your "expert's" own words is mockery? He is a pathologist. He works to tell what people really died of, rather than what their Doctor claimed. Like most creationist experts, he is qualified in something other than the field he is commenting on so inaccurately.

Actually Dr. Demick is a pathologist, pathology according to Merriam-Webster is:

1: the study of the essential nature of diseases and especially of the structural and functional changes produced by them

Now that we have a firm grasp on the definition of what his title is, what the man was speaking about is recent research revealing mutations being associated with diseases which affect the human genome. In addition these mutations were not able to increase, "the efficiency of a genetically coded human protein."

So, having said that why is what he said so inaccurate? Or, how is what he is saying about diseases not consistence with what pathology is?

[Dangerrmouse]

Merriam Webster's MEDICAL dictionary defines "pathologist" as "a doctor who specialises in diagnosis."

Like this????

" Metaphorically, the expression of those peaceful virtues in our body cells leads to a state of health. When those "virtues" are lost in a clone of cells, we have cancer."

[burntgorilla]

I haven´t read much of this thread, and to be honest really can´t be arsed, since it´s probably a load of rubbish, but I´d just like to point out that humans have less genes (or chromosomes, it´s too hot to think) than many species, so the whole "more information (or "advancedness") needing more DNA" thing is a crock of ****. I don´t really know if this is relevant, but I just thought I´d like to post it, for old times´sake, you know?

[Meek Heir]

And this process has been observed to change a primate to a man, or an amphibian to a reptile as evolution predicts I assume as well, right?

It's a good thing you never think with your brain. It might hurt. I mean the whole concept of time is just a headache waiting to happen.

The nucleotides should be evaluated as an ensemble and not exclusively in context of isolated specific genes, which is ultimately where I am getting at.

Yes, and if you look at them as an ensemble you will see that that ensemble can mutate into something slightly different.

And this natural process you are describing, it has of course been observed to change an amphibian to a reptile, right?

See above about thinking.

How can mutations take a fish and make it a man, if mutations as a whole to a organisma are hazardous? It creates DEVOLUTION not evolution.

The idea that mutations can not be beneficial is a made up notion used by opponents of evolution in place of real evidence.

The complex nature of such a process you are describing so simply, as writing a new book, is actually begging to be answered by a Designer.

Or I could right a program designed to simulate random mutation and natural selection to edit the text of Moby Dick into a new book.

[Meek Heir]

what the man was speaking about is recent research revealing mutations being associated with diseases which affect the human genome. In addition these mutations were not able to increase, "the efficiency of a genetically coded human protein."

Maybe in being a pathologist he is predisposed to see the harmful mutations only. And so has missed the ones that help. (By the way, human genome project hasn't been completed. That means that we still only know about mutations when they cause very large noticable changes. Large noticable changes are more likely to be deadly then the small, not so noticable changes like faster metabolism.)

[Meek Heir]

I haven´t read much of this thread, and to be honest really can´t be arsed, since it´s probably a load of rubbish, but I´d just like to point out that humans have less genes (or chromosomes, it´s too hot to think) than many species, so the whole "more information (or "advancedness") needing more DNA" thing is a crock of ****. I don´t really know if this is relevant, but I just thought I´d like to post it, for old times´sake, you know?

Well I think that in general it is silly to compare length of genetic strands because of the immense amount of "junk DNA" which doesn't encode. Clearly, every species carries around more DNA then is strictly needed to produce the body.

[sub_zer0]

It's a good thing you never think with your brain. It might hurt. I mean the whole concept of time is just a headache waiting to happen.

So then it hasn't been observed to do this, quit appealing to time and show me a real scientifically observed process that does this.

The point is, creationism only relies what we observe, while evolution needs time to prove something that hasn't been observed.

Yes, and if you look at them as an ensemble you will see that that ensemble can mutate into something slightly different.

Slightly isn't primate to man, slightly is what creationism predicts, or variation within a created kind.

The idea that mutations can not be beneficial is a made up notion used by opponents of evolution in place of real evidence.

I never said mutations can not be beneficial, look at the nylon bug. But what they cannot do, or have not been observed to do, is change a primate to a man or an amphibian to a reptile as evolution needs.

Mutations will never be able to produce what evolution needs.

Or I could right a program designed to simulate random mutation and natural selection to edit the text of Moby Dick into a new book.

All you are describing is an intelligent mind needed to design this process.

[Meek Heir]

So then it hasn't been observed to do this, quit appealing to time and show me a real scientifically observed process that does this.

Quit appealing to idiocy. The process has been observed. We have not been watching for millions of years yet.

Slightly isn't primate to man, slightly is what creationism predicts, or variation within a created kind.

Slightly builds up.

I never said mutations can not be beneficial.

No, that was you expert witness who said it.

All you are describing is an intelligent mind needed to design this process.

I'm describing an intelligent mind creating the motivation. Survival is the motivation in evolution.

[sub_zer0]

Quit appealing to idiocy. The process has been observed. We have not been watching for millions of years yet.

I know the process has been observed, doesn't mean it is proof of evolution by any stretch of the mind.

Has this process of different sequences making up different protiens been observed to change a primate to a man, or an amphibian to a reptile like evolution needs, or has it not only because we have not been watching for millions of years?

Slightly builds up.

You can say that, but no scientifically observed process has shown that slight changes build up than make the changes needed for evolution.

No, that was you expert witness who said it.

He said mutations associated with diseases are not beneficial if anything.

My point still stands, mutations can be beneficial rarely, but what they cannot do, or have not been observed to do, is change a primate to a man or an amphibian to a reptile as evolution needs.

[Dangerrmouse]

Man IS a primate to begin with. :rolleyes:
.

[JoeR]

It needs to be kept in mind that it isn't a sharp cut off between amphibian and reptile, etc. Makes more sense to think of it as a continuum.

[sub_zer0]

It needs to be kept in mind that it isn't a sharp cut off between amphibian and reptile, etc. Makes more sense to think of it as a continuum.

Still hasn't been observed, evolution relies on unobserved things while creationism only relies on what is observed.

[JoeR]

All sorts of science uses things that aren't literally observable by humans. That your version of science doesn't isn't a positive.

[sub_zer0]

All sorts of science uses things that aren't literally observable by humans. That your version of science doesn't isn't a positive.

The thing is with the science that isn't literally observable, the tests achieve the predictions set forth. With evolution the tests done to prove it do not fit with what the model predicts.

[Dangerrmouse]

Man remains a primate.

[sub_zer0]

Anybody have anything to add?

[JoeR]

With evolution the tests done to prove it do not fit with what the model predicts.

And when that happens the model changes, unlike with your dogmatic, definitionally unscientific approach to science.

[sub_zer0]

And when that happens the model changes, unlike with your dogmatic, definitionally unscientific approach to science.

Actually creationism only relies on scientifically observed things, you know like small changes.

If you are correct in stating that evolution model changes, why does it still rely on amphibian to reptile change and not just the changes we observe today?

[JoeR]

Small changes over millions and millions of years turn into big changes.

[sub_zer0]

Small changes over millions and millions of years turn into big changes.

Never been observed, nor do the tests we use to verify evolutionism's model add up to that, sorry.

[Meek Heir]

Has this process of different sequences making up different protiens been observed to change a primate to a man, or an amphibian to a reptile like evolution needs?

By definition we cannot observe a primate to another primate, or amphibian to reptile change since they have already happened. What you should be looking for is a new phenotypic change of the same scale. Something no one can see in their own lifetime because of it's gradual nature. Something like the Platypus might become a begining of that change since it defies the normal conventions of mammals.

You can say that, but no scientifically observed process has shown that slight changes build up than make the changes needed for evolution.

If I move a rock a meter a day do you doubt I will move it a mile? Why do you think that slow change to genetic code can not build up?

[sub_zer0]

By definition we cannot observe a primate to another primate, or amphibian to reptile change since they have already happened.

Primate to primate is creationism and has been observed. There are still primates so evolution should still be happening within them.

What you should be looking for is a new phenotypic change of the same scale. Something no one can see in their own lifetime because of it's gradual nature. Something like the Platypus might become a begining of that change since it defies the normal conventions of mammals.

Well the science is still out on that.

If I move a rock a meter a day do you doubt I will move it a mile? Why do you think that slow change to genetic code can not build up?

You really think only beneficial changes take place? There are steps backwards as well, as a matter of fact the observable science we have on mechanisms that supposedly make evolution happen is that they are rarely beneficial if at all for that matter.

[JoeR]

The steps backwards aren't passed on.

[dittohead not!]

Still hasn't been observed, evolution relies on unobserved things while creationism only relies on what is observed.

Right. And you have observed which organism being created?

Come to think of it, how was it created if not through evolution?

[sub_zer0]

The steps backwards aren't passed on.

As, Henry Morris states: "The mutation concept of evolution seems about as logical as to say that, if a man travels south 90 miles, then north 1 mile, then south 90 miles, then north 1 mile, and so on, he will reach the North Polse before he reaches the South Pole."

[Meek Heir]

Primate to primate is creationism and has been observed. There are still primates so evolution should still be happening within them.

If you don't object to primates evolving into other primates then why don't you recognize that humans evolved from non-sentient apes?

Well the science is still out on that.

Of course the science is still out. It hasn't happened yet, and might not. It is a gradual process which could be said is begining. But unless it happens then it didn't really begin.

You really think only beneficial changes take place? There are steps backwards as well, as a matter of fact the observable science we have on mechanisms that supposedly make evolution happen is that they are rarely beneficial

See, up till here you just are having trouble wrapping you head around the concept of how natural selection makes only progress possible and not reversion. And how a changing enviroment or nearby different enviroment can make things that are not obviously beneficial useful.

Then you go and throw this on:

if at all for that matter.

This is exactly what you denied saying earlier in this thread. It is silly, and wrong. We have clear documented cases of mutations proving useful. Natural selection can hardly not be useful.

The processes that drive evolution are useful.

[Meek Heir]

As, Henry Morris states: "The mutation concept of evolution seems about as logical as to say that, if a man travels south 90 miles, then north 1 mile, then south 90 miles, then north 1 mile, and so on, he will reach the North Polse before he reaches the South Pole."

And when you add in natural selection you say that if a man walks north 1 mile then holds still for 90 minutes then walks north 1 mile and so forth, he will reach the north pole before the south pole.

But in reality, lets just face facts. The man drowns. You can't reach either pole without walking over water, and our hypothetical man is not Jesus.

[sub_zer0]

If you don't object to primates evolving into other primates then why don't you recognize that humans evolved from non-sentient apes?

Because it hasn't been observed.

See, up till here you just are having trouble wrapping you head around the concept of how natural selection makes only progress possible and not reversion. And how a changing enviroment or nearby different enviroment can make things that are not obviously beneficial useful.

The point is, mutations are more harmful than they are beneficial.

This is exactly what you denied saying earlier in this thread. It is silly, and wrong. We have clear documented cases of mutations proving useful. Natural selection can hardly not be useful.

The processes that drive evolution are useful.

Mutations are beneficial rarely, most often they are harmful. Point is, this process has never been seen to change a primate to a man.

And when you add in natural selection you say that if a man walks north 1 mile then holds still for 90 minutes then walks north 1 mile and so forth, he will reach the north pole before the south pole.

Not really... You have to realize for natural selection to work for its result to be evolution, it would have to build upon related beneficial mutationst.... That is impossible.

[Dangerrmouse]

Because it hasn't been observed.


The point is, mutations are more harmful than they are beneficial.


Mutations are beneficial rarely, most often they are harmful. Point is, this process has never been seen to change a primate to a man.





Not really... You have to realize for natural selection to work for its result to be evolution, it would have to build upon related beneficial mutationst.... That is impossible.

Yes it has.

The point is that "harmful" ones tend not to survive, where "beneficial" ones tend to do so.


See above. :rolleyes: Man is a primate.


Since we exist as a result of evolution, then it patently is possible.

[Meek Heir]

Because it hasn't been observed.

So you do not believe in Heaven?

The point is, mutations are more harmful than they are beneficial.

But only the beneficial ones matter.

Mutations are beneficial rarely, most often they are harmful. Point is, this process has never been seen to change a primate to a man.

Of course it has n