Bible IS SCIENCE, exposing misnamed 'science' today

[dad]

And it gets it all wrong.

 

[tas8831]

When was this, and can you prove it?

You are asking me to prove this:

"a time before microscopes, knowledge of DNA, etc."?

Are you really implying that the bible tales authors had microscopes and knowledge of DNA?

Do you believe that technology frees mankind up to do more than he ever could, or does it hinder him by locking his mind up in a box of man made rules?

The latter.

 

[tas8831]

Look into it, trust me evolution comes out to be a myth from a guy who was a racist who said the irish were lower than the blacks.

Why on earth would I trust someone whose first 'argument' is a fallacious ad hominem?

Claiming someone else's beliefs myths while regurgitating something a guy in a lab coat said that you can't prove is the same thing. Your running on faith like everyone else.

Cool story. As it turns out, I am one of those guys in a labcoat, and I am betting you are not? Try this on for size and show me the myth:

I forget now who originally posted these on this forum, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it - I have already posted this 2 or 3 times in thread alone for creationists who claim that there is no evidence for evolution:

The tested methodology:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.



We can conclude that the results of an application of those methods have merit.


Application of the tested methodology:

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "

​

Follow me here a sec,
Human and Chimp Genes May Have Split 13 Million Years Ago
Human beings and chimps last common ancestor estimated 13 million years ago.

Differences Between Chimp and Human DNA Recalculated
genetic difference between chimps and humans is 41.7million base pairs.

Generation time - Wikipedia
average human generation is 25 years

13 million years / 25 years of human generation = 520,000 generations
41.7 million base pairs between humans and chimps currently / 520,000 generations = 80.192 genetic base pairs changed per generation would be the rate of evolution.

Sounds great. A bit off, but who is counting? your point?

https://www.globalanimal.org/2011/09/25/only-seven-different-genes-for-all-those-dogs
7 genetic differences between all dog breeds.

So, you are equating "80.192 genetic base pairs" so-called to "7 genetic differences"? Ok... I wrote as I smirked and chuckled to myself...

I'm sure you don't drastically different from your grandfather yet that's roughly 240 genetic base pair differences.

Let me help you out a bit, Champ -

1. A mutation is not the same thing as a different gene.
2. The human genome is made up of about 3 billion base pairs.
3. Those 240 mutations you mention account for a whopping 0.000008% of the genome.
4. There are only about 25000 genes in the genome
5. Most mutations do not even occur in genes or regulatory sequence

You are trying to formulate an anti-evolution argument premised on an article you read about dog breeds being accounted for by 7 genes, and me having 240 mutations my grandparents didn't have.

Have you heard the phrase "apples and oranges"? Your argument he is like "apples and fish."

15 Oldest Photographs Ever Known To The Human History
oldest photograph is from 1838

181 years ago would be 14503.349 genetic base differences people look like people today.

Oh GENETIC base pairs, why didn't you say so?

Another hint - a typical gene is made up of around 1500 coding base pairs. Even within coding sequence, mutations do not necessarily cause a change at all.

Apples and fish.

Maybe you don't know everything,

Never claimed to, but as one that has actually studied and received degrees in relevant science field,s I think I am up to snuff on this stuff - which is why I was able to tell your argument was, well, worthless.

maybe what you've been taught is wrong.

Same to you.

Think for yourself not just spew out other peoples rhetoric.

How ironic...

 

[tas8831]

Yes, the religion of science!

Wow, OK bro...

 

[tas8831]

How much time must pass before my christmas tree turns into a dog? Where are the missing links? What is the sexual advantage of a half developed eye?

Wow... And you lecture me about spouting other people's rhetoric???

Where did you learn about evolution? Church? It shows...

 

[Firewatchduty]

Wow... And you lecture me about spouting other people's rhetoric???

Where did you learn about evolution? Church? It shows...

You are now the 3rd person to completely avoid my points. Smug retorts are not arguments.

 

[JackRT]

Yes, the religion of science!

Reasons why science is not a religion:

1. Science by its very nature can not address the spiritual or supernatural realm and as a result cannot make claims about the supernatural.

2. Science has no sacred places, objects or times.

3. Science has no rituals based on sacred places, objects or times.

4. Science has no moral code based on supernatural origin or religious authority.

5. Science has no prayer or appeal to the supernatural.

6. Scientific theories are derived from observation and experiment not from revelation or religious authority as are doctrines or dogmas.

7. Scientific theories are not fixed for all time but can be refuted or modified on the basis of new evidence.

This being said, individual scientists frequently have religious beliefs including Christianity.

 

[Firewatchduty]

Reasons why science is not a religion:

1. Science by its very nature can not address the spiritual or supernatural realm and as a result cannot make claims about the supernatural.

2. Science has no sacred places, objects or times.

3. Science has no rituals based on sacred places, objects or times.

4. Science has no moral code based on supernatural origin or religious authority.

5. Science has no prayer or appeal to the supernatural.

6. Scientific theories are derived from observation and experiment not from revelation or religious authority as are doctrines or dogmas.

7. Scientific theories are not fixed for all time but can be refuted or modified on the basis of new evidence.

This being said, individual scientists frequently have religious beliefs including Christianity.

Are you yourself proving the things they say? or you just believe what they say and take it on FAITH that they know.

 

[Tone]

He isn't imposing anything. You are the one posting about your religious beliefs in the Physical & Life Sciences thread. If you have anything scientific to add, then let's hear it. If you dismiss science, then what are you doing in here?

I only dismiss what you call science, just as you dismiss what I (and the Bible) call faith...it is the same with religion. I can refer you here for some rational evidence: Linguistic Apologetics...unless you believe that linguistics is not science?

*And I was speaking to the OP, if you believe that I am off topic, let him decide.

 

[Speedwell]

Are you yourself proving the things they say? or you just believe what they say and take it on FAITH that they know.

They do it to each other. Nothing advances a scientist's career so much as overturning an established theory. But in principle anyone can check a scientist's results if they want to take the trouble to reproduce the experiments and observations. In fact, a scientist is required to present his conclusions in such a way as to make that possible.

 

[Tone]

I only dismiss what you call science, just as you dismiss what I (and the Bible) call faith...it is the same with religion. I can refer you here for some rational evidence: Linguistic Apologetics...unless you believe that linguistics is not science?

*And I was speaking to the OP, if you believe that I am off topic, let him decide.

"Linguistics is the scientific study of language.[1] It involves analysing language form, language meaning, and language in context.[2] The earliest activities in the documentationand description of language have been attributed to the 6th-century-BC Indian grammarian Pāṇini[3][4] who wrote a formal description of the Sanskrit language in his Aṣṭādhyāyī.[5]"
Linguistics - Wikipedia

"Energetics (also called energy economics) is the study of energy under transformation. Because energy flows at all scales, from the quantum level to the biosphere and cosmos, energetics is a very broad discipline, encompassing for example thermodynamics, chemistry, biological energetics, biochemistry and ecological energetics. Where each branch of energetics begins and ends is a topic of constant debate. For example, Lehninger (1973, p. 21) contended that when the science of thermodynamics deals with energy exchanges of all types, it can be called energetics."
Energetics - Wikipedia

Oh okay, you're probably right, the science you are speaking of here does not consider energy...but, this seems to conflict with Einstein...I don't know...have at it...I'm out.

 

[JackRT]

Are you yourself proving the things they say? or you just believe what they say and take it on FAITH that they know.

I spent my entire career as a scientist, mathematician and educator. I know what science is and what its limitations are --- from experience. I think it is up to you to prove me wrong.

 

[Tone]

"The Physical & Life Sciences forum is a discussion and debate area on physics, biology, chemistry and other physical sciences. Other physical sciences may include but is not limited to astronomy, earth science, archeology, climate change, ecology, geology, oceanography and energy."
Statement of Purpose - Physical & Life Sciences Statement of Purpose

Oh wait, we can speak of words (energy) here! Okay, I'm back!

 

[Firewatchduty]

I spent my entire career as a scientist, mathematician and educator. I know what science is and what its limitations are --- from experience. I think it is up to you to prove me wrong.

I'll take you on your word. Since your a mathematician could you refer to my math on genetic differences between chimpanzees and humans and the rate of evolution?

 

[JackRT]

They do it to each other. Nothing advances a scientist's career so much as overturning an established theory. But in principle anyone can check a scientist's results if they want to take the trouble to reproduce the experiments and observations. In fact, a scientist is required to present his conclusions in such a way as to make that possible.

In recent decades the most dramatic example of that was in 1989, when electrochemists Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons made the stunning announcement at a press conference at the University of Utah that they had tamed the power of nuclear fusion in an electrolysis cell --- cold fusion. It was greeted with both excitement and skepticism. Scientists all over the world rushed to their labs to replicate the experiment. They couldn't. Their reputation was destroyed. Perhaps their biggest mistake was to prematurely announce their
"discovery" before going through the peer review process and then publishing.

 

[JackRT]

I'll take you on your word. Since your a mathematician could you refer to my math on genetic differences between chimpanzees and humans and the rate of evolution?

I am long retired and very rusty at my mathematics and genetics and evolution was not my field. I'll take a pass on that.

 

[Firewatchduty]

I am long retired and very rusty at my mathematics and genetics and evolution was not my field. I'll take a pass on that.

I see, it's pretty basic math you must be pretty rusty. How about that scientist thing rusty on that too? What were you a scientist of?

 

[HitchSlap]

I see so you have no arguments, so you attack the phrasing of the questions. There's no animosity here just think for yourself, I'm not even saying believe me just look into it.

 

[HitchSlap]

Ludlow schools Hovind. Yes, this is actually what creationists believe.

 

[Firewatchduty]

Eddie Bravo haha awesome. Hey since your a Isaac Asimov fan
Asimov son in PC inappropriate content case | ZDNet