Prove it or remove it challenge

[Loudmouth]

This illustrates the importance of semantics and syntax.

Darwin is describing the several powers of his view of life, even to "breathing life into a few forms or many". He is talking about naturalism. Not God. Evolution, not creation.

Yet other versions of Origins includes a reference to a Creator:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."--Charles Darwin, "Origin of Species"

Abiogenesis was never a part of the theory. If the first life form was created by divine fiat, nothing in the theory would change.

You might as well claim that we can't accept the Germ Theory of Disease until we can show where life came from.

 

[Loudmouth]

Still hanging onto the "junk DNA" debacle?

What debacle?

The only debacle I have seen is the complete misrepresentation of the facts by creationists.

When it was first pronounced "junk", non-coding DNA fell off the map as targeted for research. Stayed off the map for many years.

That is a complete misrepresentation of the facts. Non-coding DNA is not synonymous with junk DNA. Scientists have been studying non-coding DNA from the very start since it contains very important functions as promoters and other functions. That doesn't mean that all non-coding DNA has function.

No wonder scientists of all stripes and atheist interlocutors on this forum VERY STUPIDLY CLAIM that anyone who believes in ID wants all science to stop. Flat plain stupid.

It is scientific studies that have verified the status of junk DNA as junk DNA. Over 80% of the human genome accumulates mutations at a rate consistent with neutral drift, evidence that it is junk DNA.

 

[Loudmouth]

I know what the experiments were for:

The Miller-Urey Experiment
The Miller-Urey experiment was an experiment that simulated hypothetical conditions present on the early Earth in order to test what kind of environment would be needed to allow life to begin.

That's wrong. The experiment was meant to test the conditions needed to form organic biomolecules from simple inorganic molecules.

 

[Loudmouth]

10,000,000,000,000 mutations at 1,000,000 to 1 deleterious/neutral to beneficial.

Where did that number come from? Did you just make it up?

 

[Loudmouth]

And where did you get any of your figures?

I'm saving it for the debate ha ha!

5 million years since common ancestry is taken from the fossil record.

The generation time is taken from observations of current human populations.

The mutation rate is taken from directly comparing children's genomes to their parent's genomes.
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v43/n7/full/ng.862.html

A steady population of 1 million seems like a feasible number.

Any other questions?

 

[Paterfamilia]

Yet other versions of Origins includes a reference to a Creator:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."--Charles Darwin, "Origin of Species"

Abiogenesis was never a part of the theory. If the first life form was created by divine fiat, nothing in the theory would change.

You might as well claim that we can't accept the Germ Theory of Disease until we can show where life came from.

"Finally, as to why Darwin made that remarkable change in the final sentence, Dr. Charles F. Urbanowicz, Professor of Anthropology offers up Martin Gardner’s explanation:

“Darwin himself, as a young biologist aboard H.M.S. Beagle, was so thoroughly orthodox that the ship’s officers laughed at his propensity for quoting Scripture. Then ‘disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate,’ he recalled, ‘but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress.’ The phrase ‘by the creator,’ in the final sentence of the selection chosen here, did not appear in the first edition of Origin of Species. It was added to the second edition to conciliate angry clerics.Darwin later wrote, ‘I have long since regretted that I truckled to public opinion and used the Pentateuchal term of creation, by which I really meant ‘appeared’ by some wholly unknown process.” [stress added] (Gardner, 1984)"


Any other questions?

 

[Paterfamilia]

5 million years since common ancestry is taken from the fossil record.

The generation time is taken from observations of current human populations.

The mutation rate is taken from directly comparing children's genomes to their parent's genomes.
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v43/n7/full/ng.862.html

A steady population of 1 million seems like a feasible number.

Any other questions?

I look forward to our debate. But not predatorily ha ha

 

[Paterfamilia]

Where did that number come from? Did you just make it up?

Hahahahaha!

 

[Paterfamilia]

That's wrong. The experiment was meant to test the conditions needed to form organic biomolecules from simple inorganic molecules.

Bull.

 

[Loudmouth]

"Finally, as to why Darwin made that remarkable change in the final sentence, Dr. Charles F. Urbanowicz, Professor of Anthropology offers up Martin Gardner’s explanation:

“Darwin himself, as a young biologist aboard H.M.S. Beagle, was so thoroughly orthodox that the ship’s officers laughed at his propensity for quoting Scripture. Then ‘disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate,’ he recalled, ‘but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress.’ The phrase ‘by the creator,’ in the final sentence of the selection chosen here, did not appear in the first edition of Origin of Species. It was added to the second edition to conciliate angry clerics.Darwin later wrote, ‘I have long since regretted that I truckled to public opinion and used the Pentateuchal term of creation, by which I really meant ‘appeared’ by some wholly unknown process.” [stress added] (Gardner, 1984)"


Any other questions?

All it shows is that evolution is flexible enough to incorporate divine beginnings for life.

There is also the question that you still refuse to answer. What would change in the theory of evolution if the first organism were created by divine fiat?

 

[Loudmouth]

Bull.

"The Miller–Urey experiment[1] (or Miller experiment)[2] was a chemical experiment that simulated the conditions thought at the time to be present on the early Earth, and tested the chemical origin of life under those conditions. The experiment confirmed Alexander Oparin's and J. B. S. Haldane's hypothesis that putative conditions on the primitive Earth favoured chemical reactions that synthesized more complex organic compounds from simpler inorganic precursors."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment

 

[Loudmouth]

Hahahahaha!

So you were lying?

 

[Paterfamilia]

All it shows is that evolution is flexible enough to incorporate divine beginnings for life.

There is also the question that you still refuse to answer. What would change in the theory of evolution if the first organism were created by divine fiat?

I think I already said it wouldn't make any difference. I don't buy evolution as a robust capable mechanism to account for diversity

 

[VirOptimus]

I think I already said it wouldn't make any difference. I don't buy evolution as a robust capable mechanism to account for diversity

So, how do you explain it?

 

[Loudmouth]

I think I already said it wouldn't make any difference.

Then they are separate theories.

I don't buy evolution as a robust capable mechanism to account for diversity

The Pope didn't buy Heliocentrism. Your opinions on the matter don't mean squat. What matters is the evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Still hanging onto the "junk DNA" debacle? Talk about an argument from ignorance.

When it was first pronounced "junk", non-coding DNA fell off the map as targeted for research. Stayed off the map for many years.

No wonder scientists of all stripes and atheist interlocutors on this forum VERY STUPIDLY CLAIM that anyone who believes in ID wants all science to stop. Flat plain stupid.

But understandable, since thats what all their scientists did.

Now you are only showing your ignorance and prejudice again. I linked articles that explained how Project ENCODE came nowhere near showing that there was no junk DNA. I asked you a simple question that you ducked that showed there was such a thing as Junk DNA. There have been lab experiments where large parts of JUNK DNA were removed from mice genomes and they did fine.

The one that is hanging onto a failed idea is you.

You do know that you probably have over 100 mutations yourself, don't you?

And sadly you are misinterpreting what others say about ID. ID is a scientific dead end because it is too ready to say "God did it" instead of doing the hard work and finding the actual answer to the question. ID has not come up with any ideas of any value in science.

But then you are desperately clinging to a myth, I suppose you have to at least pretend that you are being rational.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ha ha ha this too easy.

Back to normal atheist-speak I see. Why don't you explain the parameters of deduction to us sir? I would appreciate and benefit from your help.

Now you are being rather trollish and ignoring your own posts. Look at the former post of yours where you made a rather foolish mistake. You know, where you ignorant laughed at the explanation for the over 90% neutral deduction. You are showing a large amount of Dunning Kruger today.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, how do you explain it?

"God done did it."

 

[HitchSlap]

I think I already said it wouldn't make any difference. I don't buy evolution as a robust capable mechanism to account for diversity

What do you buy as a robust, capable mechanism, to account for diversity and distribution, then?

 

[Loudmouth]

What do you buy as a robust, capable mechanism, to account for diversity and distribution, then?

I put 10 bucks on "magical poofing".