Bible IS SCIENCE, exposing misnamed 'science' today

[tas8831]

It claims that through sexual advantage and survival of the fittest all life came from single cell organisms.

That sounds like something you read on a Bazooka Joe comic.

Lightning striking primordial soup jump started the creation of life.

I thought it was a tribal deity forming a man from dust...

Gradual adaptation through generations, therefore their has to be missing links.

How many? What would they look like? and how do you know?

Animals with partially developed features like eyes, fins, claws, teeth what have you would be not only found but common.

How do you figure?
Please explain, for you are so very sure of yourself but I have been at this for almost 30 years and have never heard or read anything like what you are claiming.

So genetic material + time = species according to evolution therefore how long until my christmas tree breaks down and becomes a dog?

Evolution does not posit that dogs evolved from trees.

You cannot even ask sensible questions, which is probably why you are a creationist.

 

[tas8831]

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.

If I asked you, being a Christian and all, to explain to us all how it is that you think Christianity makes sense when Jesus was a 50 foot tall blue guy, what would you say?

 

[tas8831]

I linked articles, it's not my understanding. It's science's understanding I just pointed out the obvious. Like i said you have no argument just nitpicking.

You worship a 50 foot tall blue guy, and you think WE have no argument?

 

[tas8831]

del

 

[tas8831]

I appreciate you addressing what I said even if it was a bit condescending.

Hmmm.... So, I correct your errors and it was a bit condescending. Good thing this:

"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. 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."

was not condescending at all, despite being premised on a couple of logical fallacies...but OK...

So you've proven adaptation we knew that form breeding dogs.

Breeding dogs is not adaptation.

Now show me where fish grow legs and lungs.

From your posts, it does not appear that you 1. actually want to know and 2. would be able to grasp the science.

But, OK, you should probably start here for an introductory-level overview:

From water to land

Note that lungs evolved rather early - most fish actually lost them or 'modified' them into swim bladders.

Can you link to even a similar overview of the mechanism by which Jehovah transformed silicates into bio-organic molecules when He created a man from dust?

You kind of nitpicked my argument here.

Not at all. Your 'argument' is naive and largely inapplicable.

My point is the RATE of evolution, yes between you and ol' grandad there are 240 mutations.

That is not a rate, that is a number.

Over time which is the fix all for this theory there would be changes.

I see you ignored what I wrote - 0.000008% of the genome changing, in most likely noncoding DNA, would not at all necessarily result in change. There is no one-to-one relationship between numbers of mutations and extent of 'change.' Genetics does not work that way.

So 13 million years ago a human baby came from a chimp?

Yeah, sure, you really got us there...
That is almost exactly what evolution indicates and has evidence for...

Humans and chimps shared a common ancestor. We did not evolve from them. That you do not understand this makes me doubt you have much of merit to say on the subject.

Humans in our current form are 200,000 years old which would be 8000 generations which times 80.129 would be 641032 genetic base pair differences I guess evolution took a vacation?

What is a "genetic base pair"? never heard that phrase in my 6 years of teaching genetics.

2% of the genome changing. Which includes indels, point mutations, etc. Most of which are neutral.

Evolution did not take a vacation - you just do not seem to grasp population genetics or basic genetics or basic evolutionary theory.

Sorry.

But perhaps you can explain the hyper-evolution required to get 1000+ bat species from a a single breeding pair (I assume that bats are 'clean'?) in the few thousand years since the flood that no active civilizations noticed?

 

[tas8831]

Dude?

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]. "

​

 

[tas8831]

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

Good thing only atheist evolutionists are condescending...

What were you a scientist of?

Apparently, only atheists and evolutionists actually read the posts of people they are replying to.

 

[tas8831]

I'm not twelve, I don't have heroes.

But since we're handing out unsolicited advice, same to you.

And lets not forget:

 

[HitchSlap]

And lets not forget:

We could go all day with this!

 

[tas8831]

I'm beginning to think that you do not know what reason is...

Is that why deigned not to defend your implication that the ancient Hebrews had microscopes and knew about DNA?

 

[tas8831]

Your idea of scientific evidence...is faith

Ok - show me the faith:

A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates
Abstract
Comparative genomic analyses of primates offer considerable potential to define and understand the processes that mold, shape, and transform the human genome. However, primate taxonomy is both complex and controversial, with marginal unifying consensus of the evolutionary hierarchy of extant primate species. Here we provide new genomic sequence (∼8 Mb) from 186 primates representing 61 (∼90%) of the described genera, and we include outgroup species from Dermoptera, Scandentia, and Lagomorpha. The resultant phylogeny is exceptionally robust and illuminates events in primate evolution from ancient to recent, clarifying numerous taxonomic controversies and providing new data on human evolution. Ongoing speciation, reticulate evolution, ancient relic lineages, unequal rates of evolution, and disparate distributions of insertions/deletions among the reconstructed primate lineages are uncovered. Our resolution of the primate phylogeny provides an essential evolutionary framework with far-reaching applications including: human selection and adaptation, global emergence of zoonotic diseases, mammalian comparative genomics, primate taxonomy, and conservation of endangered species.

Author Summary
Advances in human biomedicine, including those focused on changes in genes triggered or disrupted in development, resistance/susceptibility to infectious disease, cancers, mechanisms of recombination, and genome plasticity, cannot be adequately interpreted in the absence of a precise evolutionary context or hierarchy. However, little is known about the genomes of other primate species, a situation exacerbated by a paucity of nuclear molecular sequence data necessary to resolve the complexities of primate divergence over time. We overcome this deficiency by sequencing 54 nuclear gene regions from DNA samples representing ∼90% of the diversity present in living primates. We conduct a phylogenetic analysis to determine the origin, evolution, patterns of speciation, and unique features in genome divergence among primate lineages. The resultant phylogenetic tree is remarkably robust and unambiguously resolves many long-standing issues in primate taxonomy. Our data provide a strong foundation for illuminating those genomic differences that are uniquely human and provide new insights on the breadth and richness of gene evolution across all primate lineages.

 

[TBDude65]

What definition of "science" is the OP using?

 

[Tone]

Is that why deigned not to defend your implication that the ancient Hebrews had microscopes and knew about DNA?

Whoa! that was way back then dude...I'm still waiting for you to prove your statement. I said nothing about ancient Hebrews having microscopes...ha ha..

*Pull up the original post you are referring to.

 

[Tone]

You said this:

Yes, a bunch of ancient middle eastern numerologists and nomads "explained" things as ancient middle eastern numerologists and nomads could understand them at the time - a time before microscopes, knowledge of DNA, etc.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I said this:


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

a time before microscopes, knowledge of DNA, etc.

When was this, and can you prove it?

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?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You said:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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?



The latter.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I say:

You are asking me to prove this:

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

Yes!

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

No, not really, I asked when was that time before microscopes and knowledge of DNA...and if you can prove it.

 

[Tone]

Ok - show me the faith:

A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates
Abstract
Comparative genomic analyses of primates offer considerable potential to define and understand the processes that mold, shape, and transform the human genome. However, primate taxonomy is both complex and controversial, with marginal unifying consensus of the evolutionary hierarchy of extant primate species. Here we provide new genomic sequence (∼8 Mb) from 186 primates representing 61 (∼90%) of the described genera, and we include outgroup species from Dermoptera, Scandentia, and Lagomorpha. The resultant phylogeny is exceptionally robust and illuminates events in primate evolution from ancient to recent, clarifying numerous taxonomic controversies and providing new data on human evolution. Ongoing speciation, reticulate evolution, ancient relic lineages, unequal rates of evolution, and disparate distributions of insertions/deletions among the reconstructed primate lineages are uncovered. Our resolution of the primate phylogeny provides an essential evolutionary framework with far-reaching applications including: human selection and adaptation, global emergence of zoonotic diseases, mammalian comparative genomics, primate taxonomy, and conservation of endangered species.

Author Summary
Advances in human biomedicine, including those focused on changes in genes triggered or disrupted in development, resistance/susceptibility to infectious disease, cancers, mechanisms of recombination, and genome plasticity, cannot be adequately interpreted in the absence of a precise evolutionary context or hierarchy. However, little is known about the genomes of other primate species, a situation exacerbated by a paucity of nuclear molecular sequence data necessary to resolve the complexities of primate divergence over time. We overcome this deficiency by sequencing 54 nuclear gene regions from DNA samples representing ∼90% of the diversity present in living primates. We conduct a phylogenetic analysis to determine the origin, evolution, patterns of speciation, and unique features in genome divergence among primate lineages. The resultant phylogenetic tree is remarkably robust and unambiguously resolves many long-standing issues in primate taxonomy. Our data provide a strong foundation for illuminating those genomic differences that are uniquely human and provide new insights on the breadth and richness of gene evolution across all primate lineages.

Well,if whatever that is--is real "science",i.e., if it is conducive to what was, what is, and what will be,then it is faith. But, I'm not speaking of all the words (theory), but rather, the actual carrying out (testing/experimentation) of it...the practical application.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well,if whatever that is--is real "science",i.e., if it is conducive to what was, what is, and what will be,then it is faith. But, I'm not speaking of all the words (theory), but rather, the actual carrying out (testing/experimentation) of it...the practical application.

Faith is never part of the process in the sciences. Why do you keep assuming that it is? This is an error that those that do not understand the science make. Instead of claiming that something is done through faith you should be asking "how do they know that?"

And you claimed that there was faith there. Where is the faith? You need to be specific.

 

[Tone]

Faith is never part of the process in the sciences. Why do you keep assuming that it is? This is an error that those that do not understand the science make. Instead of claiming that something is done through faith you should be asking "how do they know that?"

And you claimed that there was faith there. Where is the faith? You need to be specific.

I have already shared what faith IS:

Hebrews 11:1
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen"

It is the substance and the evidence of invisible things.

As much as you have dealt with substance and evidence in your scientific research, you have been doing faith.

*What do you call your dealing with the substance and evidence of your research?

 

[Tone]

"Albert Einstein said:

The scientific theorist is not to be envied. For Nature, or more precisely experiment, is an inexorable and not very friendly judge of his work. It never says "Yes" to a theory. In the most favorable cases it says "Maybe," and in the great majority of cases simply "No." If an experiment agrees with a theory it means for the latter "Maybe," and if it does not agree it means "No." Probably every theory will someday experience its "No" - most theories, soon after conception.[16]"
Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

Faith is even more than this, it is:

"Faith

אֱמוּנָה emunah
The Hebrew root aman means firm, something that is supported or secure. This word is used in Isaiah 22:23 for a nail that is fastened to a "secure" place. Derived from this root is the word emun, meaning craftsman. A craftsman is one who is firm and secure in his talent. The feminine form of emun is the word emunah meaning firmness, something or someone that is firm in their actions. When the Hebrew word emunah is translated as "faith," as it often is, misconceptions of its meaning occur. Faith is usually perceived as a knowing while the Hebrew emunah is a firm action. To have faith in Elohiym is not knowing that Elohiym exists or knowing that he will act, rather it is that the one with emunah will act with firmness toward Elohiym's will.

Strong's: #530
Hebrew Word Definitions - Faith


"EMUNAH: Which means FAITH
When I first started following God, I thought faith was an intellectual decision - I knew there was a God, so therefore I had faith. But the Hebrew word for 'faith' - emunah - is less about KNOWING, and more about DOING.

'Emunah' literally means "to take firm action", so to have faith is to act. It’s kinda like a staircase; you may intellectually know the stairs go up to the next level, but until you climb the stairs you won't experience the next level. What you do is more important than what you know. Don’t just believe in the stairs, climb the stairs."
Read the Bible. A free Bible on your phone, tablet, and computer. | The Bible App | Bible.com

Faith is the theory, the testing, the proving, and the application.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have already shared what faith IS:

Hebrews 11:1
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen"

It is the substance and the evidence of invisible things.

As much as you have dealt with substance and evidence in your scientific research, you have been doing faith.

*What do you call your dealing with the substance and evidence of your research?

Sorry, that is not faith as used by Christians. In fact there is no evidence. That verse contradicts itself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Albert Einstein said:

The scientific theorist is not to be envied. For Nature, or more precisely experiment, is an inexorable and not very friendly judge of his work. It never says "Yes" to a theory. In the most favorable cases it says "Maybe," and in the great majority of cases simply "No." If an experiment agrees with a theory it means for the latter "Maybe," and if it does not agree it means "No." Probably every theory will someday experience its "No" - most theories, soon after conception.[16]"
Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

Faith is even more than this, it is:

"Faith

אֱמוּנָה emunah
The Hebrew root aman means firm, something that is supported or secure. This word is used in Isaiah 22:23 for a nail that is fastened to a "secure" place. Derived from this root is the word emun, meaning craftsman. A craftsman is one who is firm and secure in his talent. The feminine form of emun is the word emunah meaning firmness, something or someone that is firm in their actions. When the Hebrew word emunah is translated as "faith," as it often is, misconceptions of its meaning occur. Faith is usually perceived as a knowing while the Hebrew emunah is a firm action. To have faith in Elohiym is not knowing that Elohiym exists or knowing that he will act, rather it is that the one with emunah will act with firmness toward Elohiym's will.

Strong's: #530
Hebrew Word Definitions - Faith


"EMUNAH: Which means FAITH
When I first started following God, I thought faith was an intellectual decision - I knew there was a God, so therefore I had faith. But the Hebrew word for 'faith' - emunah - is less about KNOWING, and more about DOING.

'Emunah' literally means "to take firm action", so to have faith is to act. It’s kinda like a staircase; you may intellectually know the stairs go up to the next level, but until you climb the stairs you won't experience the next level. What you do is more important than what you know. Don’t just believe in the stairs, climb the stairs."
Read the Bible. A free Bible on your phone, tablet, and computer. | The Bible App | Bible.com

Faith is the theory, the testing, the proving, and the application.

Faith is not a theory. It is a logical fallacy, and usually wrong. It is none of what you claim at the end of your post.