Why do YE Creationists insist on a simplistic literal reading of the bible?

[lasthero]

But they remained microbes. That is no difference than breeding dogs.

I've never heard of anyone breeding a dog that could eat something that no other dog could eat.

 

[frogman2x]

What's funny is that time actually will change proven biology. For example, take a look at the plant kingdom. Plants are living solar panels and the sun will continue to supply us energy for billions of years. Perfect design, right? Well, it turns out there is a slight hitch--the design is reliant on the ability to suck carbon out of the air at will. As the sun has brightened (look it up!) and more and more carbon has settled out of the reach of plants (bottom of the ocean, within rocks, deep underground, etc.), the amount of free carbon dioxide has decreased. I know I'm going to regret mentioning that fact but it's true--for most of the Earth's existence (while plants were around, anyway) it has been a steamy jungle planet. Anyway, the evolutionary response has been quite pronounced--plants are starting to develop neat "tricks" for saving energy and improving the rate at which they fix carbon, at the cost (for various technical chemical reasons) of metabolic speed. Or to put it another way, plants are living slower, on less. Probably the ultimate culmination of such techniques are C4 plants. And guess what? They may be under 5% of the Earth's biomass now, but in 600 million years they'll be the only plants left. In 800 million or so, even they will die out. In 1.1 billion years, the oceans will boil.

You can scoff at this as taking place on too long of a timescale to be relevant, but in fact life has gone through extremely significant changes in temperature, atmospheric and geological chemical composition, available energy, etc. To say that "time will not change proven biology" is laughable on the face of it.

Your logic train just ran off its track. What you described did not result in the plant changing into a different . It resulted in an adaptation. If they do not adapt, they die. That is the biological fact.



None of your gazillion year statgements can be proven.

 

[frogman2x]

I've never heard of anyone breeding a dog that could eat something that no other dog could eat.

It doesn' matter. The microbe remaind a microbe and if it has any kids, they will also be micdrobes. Those microbes may have been able to do what was observed origianlly but no one ever tested for it.

A rose by any other name is still a rose.

 

[lasthero]

It doesn' matter.

It very much matters.

they will also be micdrobes

Of course they will. No one ever said different.

Also, you do realize that 'microbe' is not a species, right?

 

[OllieFranz]

Your logic train just ran off its track. What you described did not result in the plant changing into a different . It resulted in an adaptation. If they do not adapt, they die. That is the biological fact.

Adaptation and evolution are exactly the same thing. Some Creationists accept that claim up to a point. But they make a distinction between adaptation, which they call micro-evolution, and something they call macro-evolution which they claim we are teaching. Except none of the things (except speciation) that they attribute to macro-evolution bears any resemblence to the Evolutionary Model.

Quick question. Are panthers all one kind? Or are lions, tigers, leopards and jaguars all separate kinds?

 

[JWGU]

Your logic train just ran off its track. What you described did not result in the plant changing into a different .

You cannot possibly be serious about this. C4 plants have an entirely different metabolism, cannot breed with other plants, and look totally different to boot (and there are ample C3-C4 intermediate species). I suppose this just means that whatever sources you are getting your quote mines from don't have any information on them, because I can't imagine anyone aware of the facts suggesting that a creationist use them the way you have in an argument.

It resulted in an adaptation. If they do not adapt, they die. That is the biological fact.

If you accept C3-C4 evolution you have accepted pretty much the strongest form of evolution there is. From there to common descent you don't even have to work up a sweat.

None of your gazillion year statgements can be proven.

You're right, but since I actually said "billion," gave specific timeframes, and the math is based on actual experimental evidence, I would say that such statements can and have been proven beyond reasonable doubt, bar some unforeseeable planet or solar system scale events (e.g. a planet crashing into the Earth and throwing us into a new orbit). And before you ask me whether we have observed it, yes, we have--we have tons of examples of stellar evolution going on around us at all times. We know with a high degree of certainty how our (very typical) sun is going to behave.

 

[EternalDragon]

Adaptation and evolution are exactly the same thing. Some Creationists accept that claim up to a point. But they make a distinction between adaptation, which they call micro-evolution, and something they call macro-evolution which they claim we are teaching. Except none of the things (except speciation) that they attribute to macro-evolution bears any resemblence to the Evolutionary Model.

Quick question. Are panthers all one kind? Or are lions, tigers, leopards and jaguars all separate kinds?

So are you saying adaptation and everything evolving from a common ancestor are the same thing? Adaptation and ape to man is the same thing?

 

[JWGU]

So are you saying adaptation and everything evolving from a common ancestor are the same thing? Adaptation and ape to man is the same thing?

That's a simplification that ignores many other aspects of evolution that are non-adaptive, but I would certainly argue that we are better adapted to our present environment than any (at least most) of our primate ancestors were. Do you disagree?

 

[EternalDragon]

That's a simplification that ignores many other aspects of evolution that are non-adaptive, but I would certainly argue that we are better adapted to our present environment than any (at least most) of our primate ancestors were. Do you disagree?

Neither, because we (humans) were created from the beginning as we are now pretty much. Same goes for apes, dogs, insects. The environment was created and then the creatures for that environment. We are all in the same environment (Earth) by the way.

 

[JWGU]

It doesn' matter. The microbe remaind a microbe and if it has any kids, they will also be micdrobes. Those microbes may have been able to do what was observed origianlly but no one ever tested for it.

No, they weren't able to do what was observed originally, as you would know if you read the Wikipedia article. The original population did not have the ability at all and did not have the capability to do it. Over time, due to fortunate historical contingency (not natural selection), some of the necessary springboard sequences developed in a few of the subpopulations. Based on the rates at which the trait developed scientists were able to identify 2-3 likely potentiating mutations. This was a multistage process with multiple mutations required to get from point A to point B--exactly the sort of process that intelligent design proponents like to say is so improbable that anything that demands its formation is irreducibly complex. But in fact we find it can take place in geologically miniscule timescales.

(The e coli also developed three distinct clades in that time--the evolutionarily sound equivalent of kinds).

A rose by any other name is still a rose.

There is far more variation within microbes than there is within any of the macroscopic animal kingdoms. To simply reject that fact is insane. The conclusion that because two things are too small to see with the naked eye, they are the same kind of thing, has no basis in reality. And it's not like you have to take the word of these mythical scientists--go purchase a cheap microscope and some cell cultures. And to reject a major, major change like the ability to metabolize an entirely new form of energy is even more absurd. Every time humans have figured out how to exploit a new source of energy it has been the work of intelligent humans diligently working towards it, and it has often been paradigm changing. How can you dismiss the fact that we can show such advances evolving through natural selection in a laboratory in a short amount of time as no big deal?

 

[JWGU]

Neither, because we (humans) were created from the beginning as we are now pretty much. Same goes for apes, dogs, insects. The environment was created and then the creatures for that environment. We are all in the same environment (Earth) by the way.

That's just an assumption. If you are trying to use this as proof of creation, it's obviously fallacious since it's an example of begging the question. And in any case your assumption is contradicted by evidence. Not just the evidence in 29+, but the evidence of all the theories that were utilized in the formation of the arguments contained there--to deny common descent is effectively to deny every single one of the physical sciences, despite their excellent predictive track record and the lack of a suitable alternative.

 

[frogman2x]

The evidence does make it so.

Rigiht, so produce the evidence.

Calling something ridiculous does not refute it. Try to use facts. They work a lot better.

It does until you produce the evidence. Hee is my ev idenced: The offspring cannot inherityh a trait that one of both parents did not have.

Now refute that and presednt your evidence.

No, you didn't. You are still running away from it.

Obviously you don't undestand the phrase.

It did so through the accumulation of species specific mutations. Already explained multiple times now, and never refuted by you.

You have not explained anything. You have answered with the standard evo response---You just say it happened. You don't even understand mutations.
You mention specific mutations, what are they?

To try and make it easy for you, what mutated to make it lose it legs?

 

[Loudmouth]

Rigiht, so produce the evidence.

Already have in multiple posts in this very thread.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

The offspring cannot inherityh a trait that one of both parents did not have.

That has already been proven false. For example, dwarfism is a dominant trait. If you have just one allele for dwarfism you will have dwarfism. Children with dwarfism are born to parents who don't have dwarfism. This is due to mutations producing new traits in gametes.

You are just wrong, as usual.

Obviously you don't undestand the phrase.

Still running away from the evidence.

You have not explained anything. You have answered with the standard evo response---You just say it happened. You don't even understand mutations.

I understand them much better than you.

The reason that chimps and humans look different is because of mutations.

You mention specific mutations, what are they?

Dwarfism is caused by mutations in the FGFR3 gene, as one example. Mutations in the MC1R gene in pocket mice produced a new coat color trait, which you can read about here:

The genetic basis of adaptive melanism in pocket mice

Mutations produce new traits not seen in their ancestors. It is an observed fact.

 

[JWGU]

Frogman, the Lenski experiment is direct evidence of offspring exhibiting a trait that one of the parents (the one parent, actually, since that species of e coli reproduces asexually) did not have. And we don't even need an example that extreme--many point mutations result in birth defects that neither parent had. Stop using that as evidence--even if biologists were willing to work within your definition of kind (which would probably make all animals the same thing, which is actually still more justifiable than saying all microbes are the same), what you said still wouldn't be true.

 

[Loudmouth]

Why are you trying to compare the growth rates of one living creature to the slow evolution of a species population over a long period of time?

Why are you avoiding the question? Here it is again:

Can you point to the very second in your lifetime when you went from being a baby to a toddler? From a toddler to an adolescent? From an adolescent to an adult?

There is no pointing out what you ask because those terms are man made and don't really represent real stages of growth of a human.

Babies aren't real? Adolescents aren't real? Really? You are going off the deep end now.

 

[OllieFranz]

Babies aren't real? Adolescents aren't real? Really? You are going off the deep end now.

I can only assume he wants to claim that it is all the same person, and that makes it simply a human being. Of course, he is ignoring real changes that the human being goes through from birth through death, and that, in terms of what he is capable of and held responsible for. A baby is not able to put in a day's work nor is it held responsible for ruining its bedding with its bodily waste. It is a claerly different stage in the human being's life. Similarly, puberty is a distinct stage. But it is not possible to mark the day and hour when puberty begins or ends.

Similarly, there is no specific point where we can say Pan made the split from a single species to two, chimps and bonobos. Or when panthers definitively split into lions, tigers, jaguars, and leopards. In fact, since the different panther species can still hybridize, it is possible to claim that they have not split yet.

 

[frogman2x]

We can tell which species a life form is by its DNA. We can even tell which person a DNA sample came from if that DNA is found at a crime scene. You are simply ignorant of how genetics works, and this is a prime example. Perhaps you should check this out:

BLAST: Basic Local Alignment Search Tool

Have you ever done a BLAST search? I'm guessing not.


Why not?

Not necessary. It will not change the proven biological facts.

With ERV's we have done just that. I have shown you that we can trace DNA back to a shared ancestor.

Of course but it only traces it back to one of the same species. They have Never traced human DNA back to an ape. DNA actually refutes evolution.

Also, you have yet to explain how having unique DNA disproves common ancestry.

It doesn't. That is the point for goodness sake. Human DNA is unique to humans. Ape DNA is unique to apes. My DNA is is uniques me. It can tell if we are related and it will show that we are not. That is why human DNA will never trace humans back to apes. It is really quirte sdimple if you will think instead of accepting by faith alone the nonsense your evo websites are indoctrinating you with.

That is completely false. Every human is born with about 50 mutations. Those mutations are happening to every person and in every species.

That is not true and that is why you keep making dogmatic statemnts but offer no evidence. Do dyou not get embarassed by me keep asking for the evidence.

Every human, outside of identical twins, has a genome sequence that is different from all other humans. Having different and unique DNA does not prevent you from sharing a common ancestor.

It does if you are trying to prove human DNA can be traced back to ape DNA. It can't be done.

The evidence demonstrates that it did.

YAWN. what evidence?

How can they be distinct when they share so many features? Obviously, they aren't distinct.

Because every human and evdery ape has a distinct DNA. That is how DNA can tell what the animal is and if it is related. Human DNA verifies that humans ae not related to apes.

Are you saying that a transitional fossil has to be identical to modern humans in order to be transitional? Really?

Just the opposite. If they are identical, they are not transistional. YOu need to link a human fossil to an ape fossil by a series of fossils that are neither human or ape. There should be at least 25 but you have a big fat 0.

No, they say that fossils are but one piece of evidence with genetics being the bulk of the evidence.

OK I will try again. You cant use fossils because you have no intemediates. Even hard core, fundamentalist evos acknowledge that.

You can't use geneics becaue genetics says if he parents done have b ones, their kids will neve have b ones. Do you really not know that for the offspring to acquire a specific trait, at least one parent must have the gene for that trait? That is why evolution is not true.

"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Ms sans serif]Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."[/FONT]--Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"

Gould himself says and I am going to have to paraphrase" "New species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly not connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates." Gould is upset because his PE, actually supposrt after its kind, it is supposrts anything.

The facts say otherwise. Different characteristics in different species are due to differences in genome sequence, otherwise known as mutations.

Do you ever provide the evidence for what you say?

Yes, and mutations produce different genomes. Therefore, mutations are responsible for the differences between species.

You simply do not understand mutations. Mutations alter a gene but hat doe snot alte the specvies.

Can you show me a single sequence difference between chimps and humans that could not be produced by mutations? Just one?

Of course. Speech.

 

[lasthero]

You cant use fossils because you have no intemediates

Lie.

www.transitionalfossils.com

 

[frogman2x]

It very much matters.

Why?

Of course they will. No one ever said different.

If they reamain the same, where is the evolution?

Also, you do realize that 'microbe' is not a species, right?

Actually I didn't. Thanks for the info. If they are not a species, then this discussion seems pointless.

 

[frogman2x]

Already have in multiple posts in this very thread.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent


That is the usual evo dogmatgic statements with no biological evidence. They mentioned natural selectdion, which has never been proven and even if it was true, while it migh extend the life of the species, it is not a mechanism for evolutionary change.

That has already been proven false. For example, dwarfism is a dominant trait. If you have just one allele for dwarfism you will have dwarfism. Children with dwarfism are born to parents who don't have dwarfism. This is due to mutations producing new traits in gametes.

This always the most amusing answser. Homo sapians producing homo sapians is evidence of evolution. They did not proeduce new traits, they altered the tgrain that would have been gottne if the mutation did not occur.

You are just wrong, as usual.

To bad you can't prove it with some biological facts.

Still running away from the evidence.

How can I rfun away from something that has not been presented?

I understand them much better than you.

The reason that chimps and humans look different is because of mutations.

Not only do you not understand what running away means, you ae clueless about mutations

Dwarfism is caused by mutations in the FGFR3 gene, as one example. Mutations in the MC1R gene in pocket mice produced a new coat color trait, which you can read about here:

You need to consider giving examples wher the species actually changes. The dwarfs remain homo sapian and the mice remain mice. Is your error starting to sink in yet?

The genetic basis of adaptive melanism in pocket mice

Mutations produce new traits not seen in their ancestors. It is an observed fact.

They do not, they alter traits.

k