How to choose between creation and evolution.

[OldWiseGuy]

-_- that your best argument against it? It's not like there isn't fossil evidence supporting my story, as you put it (fossilized bacteria colonies also are surrounded by byproducts of their metabolism).

I accept your account as a snapshot in time, but not evidence of evolution.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

I accept your account as a snapshot in time, but not evidence of evolution.

Is that because it's not good evidence? Or because your mind is made up and you're refusing to even consider evidence that contradicts your beliefs, no matter how good the evidence?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Is that because it's not good evidence? Or because your mind is made up and you're refusing to even consider evidence that contradicts your beliefs, no matter how good the evidence?

Evolutionary evidence is but a series of snapshots in time, posed as if one magically morphed into the next.

 

[bhsmte]

Evolutionary evidence is but a series of snapshots in time, posed as if one magically morphed into the next.

Uh huh.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Evolutionary evidence is but a series of snapshots in time, posed as if one magically morphed into the next.

Only you and others that don't understand it think it's 'magic'. Those who understand evolution know that it's a simple natural process that can be observed in action in the modern world.

And by the way, it's not one species morphing into the next. New species branch off older ones.

Fossils are each a snapshot in time. But, like fifty frames a second of film becomes smooth action with no observable jumps, so does the fossil record as we discover more and more fossils. Then there's all the other evidence of evolution over and above fossils. The genetic evidence. The morphological. The geographical. The developmental. And so on and so on. You wish to depict the evidence for evolution as being sparse, but it simply isn't.

 

[durangodawood]

Evolutionary evidence is but a series of snapshots in time, posed as if one magically morphed into the next.

Hey thats what a movie is!

 

[xianghua]

A simpler example is the parallel evolution of light sensitivity in nemotode worms which is not based on an opsin-class protein. The light sensitive protein involved LITE-1 was found to have evolved from a taste-sensitive protein. There's your first step right there. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016...oundworms-sense-light-100-times-better-humans

actually this lite-1 gene isnt a taste receptor but a taste receptor homolog. means that they arent identical but similar. so we need at least several changes to evolve a light sensitive protein. even if it was possible to change it into a light sensitive protein it will be useless, since the creature will not be able to use it without another part/s that need to be able to translate it into the creature and make use of the new trait.

What do you mean by this? Clearly there are no watches that have ANY of the traits I pointed out. Hence, your conclusions appears to be completely meaningless.

not a watch but we do find a spinning motor. so basically you agree that a motor isnt evidence for design.

 

[rjs330]

That there is no evidence for evolution.
That there is evidence of the Flood.
That there are no transitional fossils.
That there are no beneficial mutations.
That evolution is a "religion".
That evolution is the same as atheism.
etc. etc.



And yet germ theory of disease doesn't take God into the equation and I bet you're fine with it. The same goes for plate tectonic theory. Heck, your local weather forecast doesn't take God into the equation, but I bet you don't complain every time you read or watch it.



You cannot merely claim something is "flawed" or "not a fact". You're going to need to provide evidence showing it to be "flawed" or "not a fact". And as far as deep time goes, that had nothing to do with whatever conspiracy theory you're alluding to. It's based on solid science over the course of 200 years.
Geologic Time: Contents

Ahh... I see, so looking at the things you mention and interpreting differently than evolutionists is a lie. Got it. So if we say there are not transitional fossils that's a lie. But the fact that you interpret fossil discoveries as transitional even though you have no real evidence that they are is not a lie. Got it.

 

[xianghua]

Then it wouldn't be a watch.

but it will look like a watch. so why not call it a watch?

 

[AnotherAtheist]

but it will look like a watch. so why not call it a watch?

Because it's nothing like a watch. That's like saying that a worm looks like a twig, so why not call it a twig. And the 'watch' you propose is far more unlike a watch than a twig is unlike a worm.

 

[rjs330]

I showed you the evolution of the eye step by step. You're now just attempting the ever-smaller-and-smaller-and-more-inconsequential-missing-link argument by asking for

The explanation I have given is sufficiently detailed and the steps are small enough that it is an entirely reasonable description of the process. There are no steps in the process that are so big that they need individual explanation or further details. At least for anyone that understands evolution in general and the evidence for it. (Which might not include you of course.)



If the watch had ALL the traits that I list, then that would be enough to conclude that it evolved by a natural process. As I clearly said in my post. The analogies I see you posting are way off because you only posit a SINGLE such watch (or car or motorised marital aid or whatever else is your favourite gizmo of the day.) And it being a single item, that is way insufficient to assume natural processes.

Just in case you try to mis-quote me, I'll repeat the traits I listed here:



Evolution is a scientific theory that has been developed to explain ALL of life that we see, populations, species, and more. Not just one isolated thing.

You didn't show the evolution of the eye. You showed a theory of how the eye might have evolved. No one has ever seen it happen and you can't reproduce or test the theory. All you have is supposition. A wild guess because you believe in evolution. Yet you have zero evidence of it ever happening.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

actually this lite-1 gene isnt a taste receptor but a taste receptor homolog. means that they arent identical but similar. so we need at least several changes to evolve a light sensitive protein. even if it was possible to change it into a light sensitive protein it will be useless, since the creature will not be able to use it without another part/s that need to be able to translate it into the creature and make use of the new trait.

It's a taste receptor homolog because it evolved from a taste receptor by mutation. Which is exactly what I said. Yes, there would need to be at least one change to make a protein that is not light sensitive to become sensitive. But, that's entirely compatible with what I said.

As I pointed out in my post which you have decided to ignore, proteins that are light receptors have evolved from other signalling proteins that already have functions in the cell. Hence, there is no need for them to be 'translate[sic] it into the creature.'

not a watch but we do find a spinning motor. so basically you agree that a motor isnt evidence for design.

No, I never said anything of the sort. As I predicted, you were looking for any sort of opportunity to misquote me. Deliberately misquoting someone is lying; why do you do that?

 

[rjs330]

And the link in post 347 from the abstract of pax gene formation . I’m going to advise you to look up the definitions of anything you don’t understand . Because if you can’t understand an abstract which is a brief summary of what’s in a scientific paper, then you have no basis for complaining about the science involved. Yes I understood it, no, I’m not going to explain it . You’re the one who needs the knowledge. Google those terms . And understand that all scientific knowledge is based on this-is-what-we-know-today

I will tell you this though . The insect eye gene and the mammal eye gene had different names,because for a very long time, we didn’t know that they were the same gene. In the 1990s they did an experiment switching eye genes between a mouse and a fruit fly.They didn’t think the experiments would work;that the mouse gene would work in a fly or vice versa. The switched genes worked beautifully . And they also did this experiment with other basic body plan genes: limb formation , nervous system formation, gut formation etc. and they all worked . Now vertebrates have been separated from arthropods since the Precambrian so they had no idea that these experiments would demonstrate common descent so vividly.

Actually they show common design. You assume they show common ancestry. All they really show is common design.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

You didn't show the evolution of the eye. You showed a theory of how the eye might have evolved. No one has ever seen it happen and you can't reproduce or test the theory. All you have is supposition. A wild guess because you believe in evolution. Yet you have zero evidence of it ever happening.

There's plenty of evidence as to how the eye evolved. You can try to deny it, but that doesn't mean that it isn't there. There is morphological evidence (e.g. the poor design in some modern eyes) the genetic evidence (e.g. components of the eye can be linked genetically to other cellular structures and proteins that have similar or different functions. It's all there.

You disparage what I say as a 'theory', but you are guilty of the equivocation fallacy. In science, a theory is not just a 'supposition' or 'wild guess'. It is: (From Wikipedia, and accurate) A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.

You are trying to use the everyday meaning of 'theory' to characterise a scientific theory, which is an entirely different thing.

You're doing the creationist strategy of simply denying the evidence, no matter how strong it is. This says more about you than it does the evidence. On the other hand, what objective testable evidence do you have for your claims about how the variety of modern life came about?

Actually they show common design. You assume they show common ancestry. All they really show is common design.

We know there is common ancestry because of all the correlated evidence of common ancestry. The Proof Is in the Proteins: Test Supports Universal Common Ancestor for All Life It is not an 'assumption'.

 

[rjs330]

If it's real, it can be examined, with verifiable evidence.

I agree, so please show verifiable evidence of common ancestry evolution. Show verifiable evidence that all.life came from.one thing .

 

[bhsmte]

I agree, so please show verifiable evidence of common ancestry evolution. Show verifiable evidence that all.life came from.one thing .

I don't play pigeon chess with creationists.

 

[xianghua]

e (e.g. the poor design in some modern eyes).

what poor design are you referring to?

 

[AnotherAtheist]

what poor design are you referring to?

Discussed here: Suboptimal Optics: Vision Problems as Scars of Evolutionary History

 

[USincognito]

Ahh... I see,

This is never a good sign...

...so looking at the things you mention and interpreting differently than evolutionists is a lie. Got it.

Nice invoking of So's Law. And you do it twice.

So if we say there are not transitional fossils that's a lie. But the fact that you interpret fossil discoveries as transitional even though you have no real evidence that they are is not a lie. Got it.

No, you don't "got it".

If you say there is no evidence for evolution, that is a lie. Period.
If you say there is evidence for the Flood, that is a lie. Period.
If you say that there are no transitional fossil, that is a lie. Period.
If you say there there are no beneficial mutations, that is a lie. Period.

And no. Scientists do not "interpret" fossils as transitonal. There is a very clear defintion of what a transitional fossil is - one that exhibits the characteristics of two different taxa - and we have those by the thousands. No "interpretation" needed.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I don't play pigeon chess with creationists.

He doesn't sound "utterly ignorant" of the subject. He just doesn't agree with you. Although it could be worse. Mark Twain deemed those who didn't agree with him insane.