If Evolution were true...

[TheBear]

I miss Glenn Morton.

 

[Greg1234]

And if you're going to look at that kind of stuff, might as well see what the researchers themselves have to say about it, from here:
Antibiotic-resistant bacteria have evolved a unique chemical mechanism, new discovery reveals

"What had perplexed scientists is that the locations to which RlmN and Cfr add molecular tags are chemically different from all others to which tags routinely are appended, and should be resistant to modification by standard chemical methods," Booker said. "What we've discovered here is so exciting because it represents a truly new chemical mechanism for methylation. We now have a very clear chemical picture of a very clever mechanism for antibiotic resistance that some bacteria have evolved."

The adaptation was addressed in the article.

The evidence clearly supports evolution no evidence of anything else.

This will enable you to better understand these advancements being referenced in Creation articles.

01/07/30 - ICBP 2000

McClintock recognized that genetic change is a cellular process, subject to regulation, and is not dependent on stochastic accidents. The idea of internally-generated, biologically regulated mutation has profound impacts for thinking about the process of evolution. Darwin himself acknowledged this point in later editions of Origin of Species, where he wrote about natural "sports" or "...variations which seem to us in our ignorance to arise spontaneously. It appears that I formerly underrated the frequency and value of these latter forms of variation, as leading to permanent modifications of structure independently of natural selection." (6th edition, Chapter XV, p. 395).​

 

[rjc34]

Well, before I make any specific comments on the video, I want to watch it again but I will say from what I remember I pretty much accepted it. That really hasn't changed much for me, though. I mostly have my exception with common descent and the time lapse it takes for evolution to go forward.

Common descent is one of the core concepts in evolutionary theory. Nothing else makes sense in evolution without it. And regarding the old earth, that's pretty much done and done. Every single branch of science that has any opinion on the matter comes to exactly the same conclusion: the Earth is about 4.54 billion years old.

Now, when it comes to specifics regarding evolution , there might be many things I wouldn't agree with, but I do not know enough about it to know exactly what that could be. But for now I don't see anything wrong with it's premise, EXCEPT when it brings in common descent or the millions of years it needs to bring about the evolutionary changes. This is always where I have had my issues. That just does not agree with the Bible and I agree with the Bible. I understand why common descent is hypothesized but I do not believe it proves its point for common descent above and beyond the case for creation.

Common descent is no longer just hypothesized, it's a full blown theory in and of itself, and it's one of the bigger chunks in the whole pie that is evolutionary theory. We've observed speciation events more than a few times (dozens if not hundreds of documented events). As I said above, the billions of years thing is pretty much done and done. There's really no debate that the earth is billions of years old. Sure, the number might fluctuate a bit, but 4.54 is the most accurate date we have with the evidence that exists.

Now I know you accept the Bible on faith; but when the evidence is so overwhelming for a better explanation, perhaps it's time to rethink your position on a literal and inerrant Bible.

I have never really been a YEC. I've pretty much always been OEC. Now I don't think that will help your case any because I still believe man and animals are only 6-10 thousand years old and from what I understand you need the millions of years to make it work.

Man and animals aren't 6-10 thousand years old. There is astoundingly overwhelming evidence to the contrary. So ether you just haven't taken the time to look at the evidence, or you have and choose to remain purposefully ignorant of it in order to support your faith.

 

[Orogeny]

*cough*

I'm confused. What are you trying to show me here?

 

[Nabobalis]

I'm confused. What are you trying to show me here?

Full paper or does it not work?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Full paper or does it not work?

When I followed that link, I got a notice that I should register.

 

[OllieFranz]

True-Color Dinosaur Revealed: First Full-Body Rendering

Abstract here (full text available upon registration):
Plumage Color Patterns of an Extinct Dinosaur

*cough*

I'm confused. What are you trying to show me here?

Full paper or does it not work?

When I followed that link, I got a notice that I should register.

Which is why Orogeny linked to the (publically available) abstract in the first place, mentioning that the full text required registration.

 

[WretchedMan]

You should at least read what you link. The article you linked argues that there seems to be function to some retroviral genes and thus the TalkOrigins argument is wrong. That's it. They created a strawman and then tore it down happily. ERVs may have a function. That, in no way invalidates the idea that ERVs indicate common descent.

What is the strawman here?

We are still in the infancy of understanding these things. They have found that a great many of the previously assumed to be non-functioning regions of our DNA actually do serve a purpose. The way things have been going, it is likely that as our understanding grows, we will find the others do as well.

There is no reason at this stage to assume that these sections are there as a result of a common ancestor. If they have a function, it is completely consistent with a common designer.

While at this point, where what we don't know about ERVs far outweighs what we do know , this is an interesting argument for your position, but this does nothing to validate Naturalism and it is not a knockdown argument for universal common descent.

 

[WretchedMan]

The Miller-Urey experiment was useful in showing us that organic compounds, including amino acids can be created from inorganic compounds.

It was already known that you could create organic compounds from inorganic (Wöhler’s urea synthesis in 1828). The issue wasn't whether or not we could apply knowledge of chemistry to synthesize organic compounds. The issue was whether those compounds could form and combine to make a simple life form in the hypothesized conditions of the earth without any intelligent direction.

It's more evidence than there is for a creator, that's for sure. If you have a good lead on where science might find the creator, then by all means, please divulge this information.

Evidence for design is evidence for the Creator and, as I said before, science is only one limited aspect of knowledge.

Good job finally getting it. You've been told the same thing by everyone in this thread. Did it finally sink in?

Seeing that this is something I have been pointing out and is foundational to my arguments, I don't see the point of your comment. Maybe you're mixing me up with someone else.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

What is the strawman here?

We are still in the infancy of understanding these things. They have found that a great many of the previously assumed to be non-functioning regions of our DNA actually do serve a purpose. The way things have been going, it is likely that as our understanding grows, we will find the others do as well.

There is no reason at this stage to assume that these sections are there as a result of a common ancestor. If they have a function, it is completely consistent with a common designer.

While at this point, where what we don't know about ERVs far outweighs what we do know , this is an interesting argument for your position, but this does nothing to validate Naturalism and it is not a knockdown argument for universal common descent.

What the scientific community knows about ERVs far outweighs what you or your creationist buddies know. ERVs are by definition exogenous pieces of genetic material that have inserted themselves into the genome. It is entirely possible that the information ERVs bring with them affects the proteome of the organism (that's actually how we discovered oncogenes -- viruses entering cells with pro-division proteins). It's not the function of ERVs, it's the pattern that's important. We know that ERVs are remnants of viruses that inserted themselves into the genome. The pattern of insertion is what is important.

The same principle is applied to SNPs, which are single-nucleotide polymorphisms in human genomes. These are endogenous pieces of genetic information. We use them for paternity testing, and they are also used as evidence of common ancestry.

 

[WretchedMan]

What do you mean "wasn't right"? Do you mean it wasn't an accurate representation of Earth's atmosphere billions of years ago? Because if so, how is that relevant? Your claim is that it can never happen, period, not that it can never happen in a certain specific environment.

I was pointing out that those who agree with universal common descent and believe in some sort of naturalistic explanation for the origin of life have said that the makeup of the atmosphere in the Miller/Urey experiment doesn't match what is thought as possible for an early atmosphere on the earth.

The point had nothing to do with my position.

 

[WretchedMan]

The Miller/Urey experiment was hardly "bunk." It was the first experiment of its kind, and similar results have been repeated with mildly reducing atmopheres now thought to represent a more accurate model of early earth.


It is evidence that organic molecules are formed naturally through out the solar system. In other words, the building blocks of life are more common than we once thought.


Life is part of nature and follows natural laws. There is no reason to think it did not come about via natural means. Therefore, the default is a natural process, unless there is evidence to suggest otherwise. In any case, if it came about through non-natural means, then science would not be able to explain it. Therefore, your last sentence makes no sense.

In terms of demonstrating that life could have arisen through naturalistic means on the earth, Miller/Urey was complete bunk. Organic molecules are not life and there is no known mechanism that will take the building blocks and actually build life.

If there are successful experiments that have demonstrated what Miller/Urey failed to do, why is Miller/Urey all that I ever see brought up?

There are plenty of reasons to think that life did not originate through naturalistic mechanisms, unless you are dismissing the possibility out of hand.

I do not have a problem with investigating whether or not life can arise naturally by unguided processes. I have a problem with the idea that it did being presented as if it is a foregone conclusion.

The sentence made perfect sense. Assuming that life arose through processes consistent with Naturalism is not a scientific claim. It is a philosophical claim.

 

[WretchedMan]

Golly, you really don't know much about philosophy OR science.

Methodological Naturalism

If we can't get past this point, I will put this painfully annoying discussion to a close. This is like talking to a brick wall. We're getting nowhere.



Adding "methodological" to it removes the claim that there are only natural causes. All adding "methodological" to it does is say that science can't say anything about the supernatural, even if the supernatural exists.



I am a naturalist, so you'll have to take this issue up with the Christians who accept science.



You couldn't be bothered to Google it? Methodological naturalism states that in its methods, science can only explain things that have natural causes.

Methodological naturalism - RationalWiki



Most "modern" biology was discovered after Darwin, and that was my point. You have no idea where modern biology is right now if you disagree with me on that. The amount of knowledge has increased exponentially since the advent of molecular biology and genetics.



I was mostly combating your ludicrous statement that modern biology preceded Darwin. But I'll play along...

Evolution is foundational for our understanding of genetics. Genetics makes no sense without evolution, because all of the genetic code lands in a nested hierarchy. If there was a designer, the designer intended to make it look like there wasn't a designer. Most of the things I listed relate to genetics.

Evolution is also foundational for our understanding of metabolism. Why do humans have the genes to synthesize Vitamin C, only they are nonfunctional? Why did we lose the ability to metabolize Uric acid, even though we have the gene (but it's nonfunctional)? Evolution poses explanations for these; creationism just makes its creator look dumber. Thanks for the scurvy and gout.



Yes, originally evolution preceded a decent theory of inheritance. But nowadays evolution is the backbone for understanding genetics. And I say that as a viral genetics researcher.



Darwin never knew of Mendel, so Mendel had virtually no effect on Darwin's theory. And genetics has come a LONG way since Mendel. Mendel is taught now in freshman high school biology, and molecular genetics is taught in college.



And you say this with what authority? Are you a biologist? This is quite a hilarious claim. I should show this around to my fellow lab members for a laugh. This would be like walking into a physics classroom and saying "relativity really hasn't had any impact on modern physics".



Now you're insulting the guy.



DEFINE SCIENCE IN PHILOSOPHICAL TERMS FOR ME AND TELL ME WHY METHODOLOGICAL NATURALISM IS INVALID AND YOUR PHILOSOPHY IS MORE ACCURATE.

please.

you're breaking me.



So by definition God is unmeasurable?



Wow.
Ancient Mesopotamians: devised the calendar which we still use today
Ancient Egyptians: first humans to diagram the human nervous system
Greeks: made advances in astronomy, engineering, geometry, mathematics, zoology, botany
India: metallurgy, astronomy, mathematics



Why is that?



What part of "I have already" don't you understand?



What would you accept as "new information" in a genome?



They don't do research, they don't teach...you kind of have to do those things to be a scientist.

Replying to you is very tiring

I've spent enough time in fruitless discussion with you. I think your idea would be best, so I will go ahead and put this to bed.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

I've spent enough time in fruitless discussion with you. I think your idea would be best, so I will go ahead and put this to bed.

Hey man, it's not my fault you have no training in science. We simply don't speak the same language.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hey man, it's not my fault you have no training in science.

Ya, well, I was born ig...

-- Sorry, I thought you were talking to me.

 

[Orogeny]

Sorry, I thought you were talking to me.

Ya, well, you was born ig...

 

[Inan3]

What the scientific community knows about ERVs far outweighs what you or your creationist buddies know. ERVs are by definition exogenous pieces of genetic material that have inserted themselves into the genome. It is entirely possible that the information ERVs bring with them affects the proteome of the organism (that's actually how we discovered oncogenes -- viruses entering cells with pro-division proteins). It's not the function of ERVs, it's the pattern that's important. We know that ERVs are remnants of viruses that inserted themselves into the genome. The pattern of insertion is what is important.

The same principle is applied to SNPs, which are single-nucleotide polymorphisms in human genomes. These are endogenous pieces of genetic information. We use them for paternity testing, and they are also used as evidence of common ancestry.

And blah, blah, blah!!

 

[Delphiki]

And blah, blah, blah!!

Boy, if that's not typical...

 

[Skaloop]

And blah, blah, blah!!

Well, that's it; you've convinced me. Oh, no you haven't. You've done nothing. You haven't even attempted to rebut the fact-based argument. Obviously it's because you can't, but I kinda expected you to at least make an attempt.

 

[rjc34]

And blah, blah, blah!!

Does my post get a response as well?