proving evolution as just a "theory"

[Speedwell]

That us NOT evolution from a common ancestor. That's my point. You prove my point. Lizards will always be lizards. Evolution from a common ancestor says the order if lizards was not always the order if lizards. It is the order of lizards, apes, arachnids etc. The theory is such hogwash. They twist everything to make it sound so reasonable. Yet when you break it down it is obviously wrong according to their own theory.

My point was that no creature evolves from an existing order to another already existing order as you seem to think the theory of evolution proposes. Whatever lizards become they will also always belong to the class Reptilia, the superclass Tetropoda, the phylum Chordata and the family Animalia.

Let me ask you a question: My great-grandfather was a German. How many generations of my descendants will have to be born and pass away before my great-grandfather is no longer a German?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

no. they didnt found it at all. they just found that those genes are missing and thats it. they believe that those genes were lost but they cant prove it. as i said: this non hierarchy exist in nature as its exist in toys or vehicles. so the claim about hierarchy in nature is incorrect.

They even went to great lengths to explain why the evidence supports the loss of the ALX3 genes and not that it evolved identically in everything else. Are you seriously positing that you know better than the researchers who were at the forefront of this research?

It's like saying 203,000 ERVs infected us at exactly the same loci as Chimps by chance, and the other few thousand or so fell into the other category that's 99.9999999999% more probable...

 

[rjs330]

"The design was put there by the designer." In other words "God did it and we don't know how, but we know it wasn't evolution." So basically, you've got nothing. I think God put the design in the creature through random variation and natural selection. Until something better comes along, that's what I'm sticking with.

Where in Scripture does it indicate any such thing?

Evolution is the theory that has nothing. They have no common ancestor. They have no fossil evidence of any such thing. They have no way of showing that it actually occurred. They have no way to test it. They have no way to reproduce it. All they have is common design which they use to try and say we all came from one thing. They they try and say what you said earlier which is lizards will always be lizards. Yet they turn around and try and say lizards, humans, arachnids and shell fish were all the same thing at in time. It's called double speak without any real evidence that any of it occurred. In fact all they have is the opposite. All kinds remain the same kind. They don't change orders.

Seems to me it fits what the Bible says happened very well. All Orders were created at the beginning with common design. They have remained the same orders always, but have evolved to fit the natural elements at the time in order to survive. But they remain the same orders (kinds).

 

[rjs330]

My point was that no creature evolves from an existing order to another already existing order as you seem to think the theory of evolution proposes. Whatever lizards become they will also always belong to the class Reptilia, the superclass Tetropoda, the phylum Chordata and the family Animalia.

Let me ask you a question: My great-grandfather was a German. How many generations of my descendants will have to be born and pass away before my great-grandfather is no longer a German?

Irrelevant to the discussion since they remain the order of human.

 

[pitabread]

Evolution is the theory that has nothing. They have no common ancestor. They have no fossil evidence of any such thing. They have no way of showing that it actually occurred. They have no way to test it. They have no way to reproduce it.

You're in complete denial.

This is why creationists have no hope of ever dislodging evolutionary biology from the sciences. If you can't even acknowledge what you are up against, how do you ever expect to deal with it?

 

[pitabread]

you said that under the design model we should not expect to find that creatures should be so similar to each other. right?

Wrong. What I said is you have no basis for determining how similar or dissimilar individual species should be.

It's not about whether or not organisms have similarities in their genomes. It's the basis for using that similarity to infer functional importance.

All you've done so far is suggest that:

1) Genetic sequences are similar and therefore they are important.
2) Genetic sequences are important because they are similar.

Do you not see how this is circular logic? You need to break out from this circular loop and provide some alternative reasoning as to why the designer would have done what they did. But you still haven't done this.

You claimed a designer would start with nearly identical genomes, but you have no support for this hypothesis or any way of testing it. You're just running in circles again, just like you did last time.

so i showed you that even under the design model we indeed should find them to be very similar.

No, you still haven't shown this.

first: you ignore my calculation about the fly evolution.

I didn't ignore it. I just don't have any knowledge on the evolution of flies and mosquitos, nor do I see how arguing over the relative important of natural selection or non-neutral mutations is particularly useful here. So I don't have anything relevant to comment on this at this time.

why not? even if the majority of mutations are indeed neutral then we should expect to find conservation among important genes. since they are so sensitive to changes.

Under evolution you would have a common genomic starting point from which to determine conservation.

Under design you don't have a common genomic starting point and therefore have no basis for determining genetic conservation.

 

[Speedwell]

Where in Scripture does it indicate any such thing?

Scripture does not address itself to the question.

Seems to me it fits what the Bible says happened very well. All Orders were created at the beginning with common design. They have remained the same orders always, but have evolved to fit the natural elements at the time in order to survive. But they remain the same orders (kinds).

So "Kinds" = "Orders." Is that your final answer? We have another creationists who posts here sometimes who maintains that "Kinds" = "Family." What is your comment on that?

 

[Jimmy D]

Where in Scripture does it indicate any such thing?

It doesn't indicate otherwise either as far a I can see.

 

[xianghua]

They even went to great lengths to explain why the evidence supports the loss of the ALX3 genes and not that it evolved identically in everything else. Are you seriously positing that you know better than the researchers who were at the forefront of this research?

since they used a belief (that this gene was lost) and i actualy use a fact (this gene is completely lacking) so yes, the design claim is better then the evolutionery one in this case.

It's like saying 203,000 ERVs infected us at exactly the same loci as Chimps by chance.

no its not. we are talking about regular genes and not about ervs. so why changing the topic?

 

[xianghua]

All you've done so far is suggest that:
1) Genetic sequences are similar and therefore they are important.
2) Genetic sequences are important because they are similar.

no. my claim is that this sequence is conserve (compare to other genes)=therefore its important. see the difference?

You claimed a designer would start with nearly identical genomes, but you have no support for this hypothesis or any way of testing it.

no. again: i gave you the sponge example. both sponge and human geneomes are very similar (even that they are so diffierent from morphological perspective). so we can predict that even under the design model many different creature should be very similar to each other at their beginning point. its funny since even evolution doesnt predict it in any case. when a group of genes dont fit with the accepted phylogeny evolutionists "solve" it by a different selection pressure. in some cases we are talking about 1/3 of the genome that doesnt fit with the phylogeny.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

since they used a belief (that this gene was lost) and i actualy use a fact (this gene is completely lacking) so yes, the design claim is better then the evolutionery one in this case.

They don't lack belief and your assertion design is a better explanation is just you being absent the education and experience they have. That's why they're making these finds and not you.

no its not. we are talking about regular genes and not about ervs. so why changing the topic?

Because it's pretty much the same technique being used to identify these locations where the gene has undergone mutation rendering it inoperative. It's plainly obvious you need to study up more on your science to be able to address this properly. Your religious belief is not enough to discount all the supporting evidence for Evolution.

 

[ruthiesea]

you made a claim that simple life is in lower layers and more advanced life is in upper layers, but this just isnt true. Im asking you to justify your statement.

The statement can be justified by reading a few scientific books on the subject. In the lowest layers, only simple organisms or their impressions are found. As one goes towards more modern layers, the organisms become more complex.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

There are always going to be exceptions especially when dealing with as simplified as genetic conservation coupled with the complexity of biology.

If you read the paper in question, they have a number of hypotheses as to why this particular scenario was the case; hypotheses which can be further tested.



But what is your basis for this assumption? This is what I keep trying to get at, but so far you haven't given an answer.

Under biological evolution, conserved genetic sequences would be a result of natural selection preserving those particular sequences. And natural selection preserving those sequences implies they have functional importance (relative to non-conserved regions).

Under the design model you propose, similar genetic sequences are entirely up to the purview of the designer. So you need to provide a reason why a similar sequence would be considered 'important' sequences.

Since you love analogies with artificially designed objects here's one:

Consider cars. If you look at vehicles built by a particular manufacturer, you will find a noticeable similarity among them: namely the manufacturer logo.

This is a functionally unimportant design feature among vehicles. You could easily remove the logos from any given car and it will still work perfectly well. Yet, it's an example of a highly conserved design element.

It's a perfect example of how similarity and functional important do not necessarily go hand-in-hand when it comes to artificial design.



That's what I'm asking. Why would the designer do what they did?

The other thing to consider is that genetic conservation is relative to overall species divergence. If we have two species that are separated by 200 million years of evolutionary change, they could have conserved genomic regions that are more diverged than two species separated by only a couple million years.

This is what the aforementioned paper was addressing by the incorporation of phylogenetic trees into the analysis.

Under your "design" model, you don't have that as a basis. All you have are again, a bunch of independent genomes with varying relative similarity. So how do you address analyzing genomes with high degree of similarity? Does high degree of similarity imply genome-wide 'conservation'?



But you still have no basis for this conclusion. Your entire assumption is that genetic similarities are important, but you haven't given a logical reason why this would be the case if genomes were independently designed.

Look, we had this conversation previously and you went in circles for weeks and couldn't come up with anything. Given that you're not providing anything new this second time 'round, I'm not expecting this to go anywhere.

So unless you come up with a proper reason why conserved genomic regions would be functionally important if genomes were independently designed, then I consider this discussion closed.

Since the importance of conserved regions is currently up to debate, which you yourself have admitted, why would you choose a part that had no function? Tests with single celled flagulum have shown that when parts of conserved regions which they believe serve no function are removed, all mobility is lost.

So we can conclude those sequences are conserved precisely because they are needed, whether biologists have figured out what they do or not. Would you not agree?

Take blonde girl #1 (sorry girls, no offense intended, just needed an analogy) who doesn’t understand anything about how a car works. She pulls a starter wire in her belief it is there for no reason and now the car doesn’t move. Does she continue believing starter wires are conserved from car to car for no reason?

Because people believe unneeded sequences are conserved, does not mean those sequences have no function. Their function is yet to be determined is all. It’s like those 30 sequences in flagulum. They believed they had no function, yet no matter which they removed, all mobility was lost.

Can we then simply conclude they were wrong in their initial belief? Because people may believe a sequence is non functional, does not mean it is.

In the above example, I can still push the car and get it to start without the starter. The entire car does not become non functional because that sequence was removed. You are just less likely to sell that car model, so it will tend to become extinct over the long run. What is readily apparent as needed for functionality may no t be so easily deduced in a living organism.

So that you find no reason for sequences to be conserved, when you don’t even know what most of them do, well, that says all that really needs said.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Actually don't confuse dog breeding and breeds with species and evolution. Most of the different breeds today are a result of man's intervention. But as you point out they are all still k-nine.

Exactly the point. Had man not intervened, what you see would have taken much longer with less variability. It is exactly the same. Can you explain to me why the offspring of say the Husky and Mastiff would be different if man brings them together, or if a famine in a specific area forces them together?

There is no difference except that of time. And in the end regardless of the time involved, they would all be the same species, simply separate subspecies.

It's a neat theory however we have to stick with what scriptures tell us. Did the earth become desolate? Yes that would be a fine way to describe God creating something that starts as a blank slate. A potter will kneed the clay until it "becomes" a pliable "desolate" lump to work with and to form his vessel. You can't build a whole doctrine out of one little word when other scriptures clearly show it is false. Romans 5:12-14 for instance plainly tells us that death did not enter into the world until Adam's sin.

That’s not what that verse says at all.

“Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned--”

We agree Adam died due to his sin, as do all people, but you conclude wrongly that therefore since man sins against God, animals sin against God. We agree that all people sin, and that death spread to all people.

That is kind of a silly argument friend. If I tell a child who is misbehaving that I am going to put him in a chair over in the corner, does that child have to have seen someone else in the corner in order to grasp the concept?

He does if all rooms are round and he’s never seen a corner. That was indeed a silly argument on your part my friend.... You require what doesn’t exist to already exist to be understood. There is no argument you can give which will not require you to first conceive of that which you claim did not first exist.

Apparently Adam was a genius and able to give names to hundreds of thousands of species that God brought to him. So he had the intelligence to grasp the concept that death was the opposite of living, without having to actually see something die.

How, if as you say nothing had ever died? In a world of round rooms, can you even conceive of a corner? What do you contrast living with if you don’t know what death is?

Without Evil, would good have any meaning to contrast to, or would it just be a state of existence you had nothing to compare it to? What is life without death to contrast it too? If there is no death, there exists no word capable of describing this state, nor concept capable of being understood. There exists nothing to relate it to.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

My point was that no creature evolves from an existing order to another already existing order as you seem to think the theory of evolution proposes. Whatever lizards become they will also always belong to the class Reptilia, the superclass Tetropoda, the phylum Chordata and the family Animalia.

Let me ask you a question: My great-grandfather was a German. How many generations of my descendants will have to be born and pass away before my great-grandfather is no longer a German?

Are you proposing birds are actually reptiles?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The statement can be justified by reading a few scientific books on the subject. In the lowest layers, only simple organisms or their impressions are found. As one goes towards more modern layers, the organisms become more complex.

So the less intelligent and less mobile are found buried in sediments deeper than the more intelligent and more mobile creatures, with fish sort of randomly scattered after several layers amongst them as the waters became muddy and they began dying because they could not hunt or navigate properly, is this what you are saying?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Because it's pretty much the same technique being used to identify these locations where the gene has undergone mutation rendering it inoperative.

I thought you all didn’t want to discuss a more variable genome before mutations rendered it less variable? So what did those genes do before they became inoperative? Apparently something since they were rendered inoperative from a state of being operative.

So we can conclude that the genome over time has become less variable due to mutations rendering portions of it inoperative. Functions that are currently unknown..

 

[rjs330]

You're in complete denial.

This is why creationists have no hope of ever dislodging evolutionary biology from the sciences. If you can't even acknowledge what you are up against, how do you ever expect to deal with it?

So you do have a common ancestor? You do have a way of showing an order evolving into a different Order? You have a way of reproducing such a thing? You have a way of testing it? I think you are the ones in denial.

 

[rjs330]

Scripture does not address itself to the question.



So "Kinds" = "Orders." Is that your final answer? We have another creationists who posts here sometimes who maintains that "Kinds" = "Family." What is your comment on that?

We have to somehow reference modern scientific terminology. Remember all definitions that science uses are man created definitions in order to try and explain a theory or thought process. It doesn't really have any true meaning of her than that. That's all we creationists do as well. Try and define something. We use words and explanations of words in order to assist in understanding. Just cause scientists have defined something doesn't mean they are correct. It's just man made word. Men decided we belong to the ape group. We say we are not the same as apes but are unique from them. But scientists made up the rules of what belongs to the ape family. But that doesn't mean we are really apes.

The Bible is consistent with creatures always remaining the same type of creature that we see in biology today. You confirmed that. As have other evolutionists. It fits with what the Bible claims.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It's like saying 203,000 ERVs infected us at exactly the same loci as Chimps by chance, and the other few thousand or so fell into the other category that's 99.9999999999% more probable...

No, it’s like just being able to admit to yourself that they use virus to insert genomic material into specifics cells. Nothing random about it except in your invalid argument.

How are viruses used in genetic engineering (recombinant DNA technology)? | eNotes

“Genetic engineering is a branch of science that seeks to develop a trait or set of traits in an organism by inserting, or incorporating, a sequence of genetic code that is specific for that trait. Viruses are tiny, nonliving particles that must have a host cell to replicate and flourish. One of the qualities viruses have that makes them attractive to genetic engineering scientists is their ability to attach to and invade specific cells, and incorporate the DNA (and/or RNA) they are carrying into the host cell, where it combines with the host cell's DNA. This invasive quality viruses have provides scientists with a "key" to open the door to the DNA in the cell which they want to modify.“

That humans and chimps by common design share some of the same cell types is then mistaken by you as common ancestory, when it is merely time of insertion when they both lived in close proximity to one another, and subject to the same viral insertions and reinfection transferring genomic material then incorporated by the virus into the hosts genetic structure.

Not common ancestory, common infection and what we call genome therapy, just on a natural, not laboratory scale.