Satanic High Priest's Claim About The Origin Of Evolution

[The Barbarian]

"Genetically closest" reminds me of how "close" humans are to apes.

Well over 90%, compared to chimps, and correspondingly less to other apes, mammals, etc.

We have something like 78% of genes in common with a mouse,

Which is about right, considering we are both mammals, but in different orders.

and not too much less in common with bananas.

About 50%, I think. Which is about right considering that we are both eukaryotes, but in difference kingdoms.

I think you just proved my point for me.

You keep talking about the fossil record as if it's evidence for something. You should know science says it only takes about 10-15 million years for erosion to wash all the continents into the oceans by constant removal of material from the top

Nope. We have Precambrian deposits still here and there. Erosion is not constant and equal in all areas. In fact, there are still a few places on the Earth where the geologic column exists in complete form. Would you like to learn about that?

- and that the reason they're still here is because of "uplift" keeping from below keeping up with what is disappearing from the top.

Turns out, things like folding, overthrusts, and vulcanism also interfere with uniform erosion. You've been badly misled on this.

North Americans should breathe easy: New research confirms that the continent has eroded very little over the past 1.5 billion years and, in all likelihood, won’t shed much ground in the next billion years, either.

Although the conclusion sounds like a no-brainer — earth scientists have long suspected that the oldest parts of the North American landscape have been quite stable — it has been difficult to confirm. Now, using a specific set of geochemical markers, a team of researchers has found a way stitch together the continent’s erosional history over the past 2 billion years.

Why North America Won't Erode Away

Chemical signatures in ancient rock in the continental crust of the North American craton have shed light on the erosion history of continent and show why continents seem to stick around for a long time.

www.livescience.com

Evolution never addresses the controlling mechanisms for assembly, which is a whole other ball of wax.

It didn't until genetics and
the structure of DNA made it clear how that happens. Darwin's great discovery was how populations change over time. The mechanisms for assembly were determined later. And they cleared up a major problem with Darwin's theory. Would you like to learn how that happened?

A mansion and a shack both built with wood, tiles, and bricks proves only that the same building materials were used - the designer arranged them in completely different ways.

The difference is in the blueprints. When DNA functions were discovered, it became clear how mutations changed the blueprints over time. God being God, He knew that evolutionary processes work better than design.

Engineers are now copying evolution to solve problems that are too difficult for design, but can be solved by mutation and natural selection. These "genetic algorithms" copy what living populations do, and they are very effective. Turns out God knew best, after all.

The "design" people are uncomfortable with a Creator that wise and capable.

 

[friend of]

Because it’s a religious based conspiracy theory.

Something comes along and challenges your world view. Must be a conspiracy theory. Yep.

 

[The Barbarian]

As I said before, God created "variety in the gene pool". What scientists think are "transitional fossils" are merely creatures that move in and around their "kind". As our friend Stephen J. Gould points out, "The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks are based on INFERENCE, however reasonable, NOT THE EVIDENCE OF THE FOSSIL RECORD"

Guess how I know you never read the article that phrase was carefully edited out of. Because you never read it, you were easy prey for the guys that gave it to you. I'm not accusing you of dishonesty; I'm suggesting you are too trusting of dishonest people. Would you like to see the whole paragraph?

All of this points to the shallowness of creationist use of quotes. In scholarly work, the use of quotations is intended to show an understanding of the relevant literature and is, in effect, a representation on the part of the person using the quote that she or he is intimately familiar with the author's work and positions. Not only are the people using this quote unfamiliar with the article it came from or Gould's work in general, they are even unfamiliar with the literature on the creationism/evolution conflict.

- John (catshark) Pieret

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists-whether through design or stupidity, I do not know-as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. - ​

Stephen Jay Gould​

Be careful who you trust. And always read the source if you want to quote. Could save a lot of embarrassment.

- why don't you listen to Mr. Gould and stop trying to establish as "fact" what is mere fiction?

See above. I'm not saying you're guilty of dishonesty here. I'm just suggesting you be a little less trusting until you read the source yourself.

As for "240 million years" - preposterous. Scientists don't get to speak of such long ages as "fact" while ignoring the mountain of evidence for a young Earth, such as Helium Diffusion dating

[/QUOTE]

You didn't know that Helium continues to migrate to the surface of the Earth from the interior? It's still happening as it has for billions of years.

, as well at the evidence in C-14.

No geologist or paleontologist uses C14 for dating the earth or fossils. Wouldn't it be better if you read up on this stuff ,and learned how it works, before telling us about it?

 

[The Barbarian]

You were really fooled by that story. Pygmy chimps lack the knees and hips to be bipedal as Lucy was. They don't have long legs and short arms as Lucy does. And they have much more robust jaws and teeth than she did.

The "knee" - not "knees"

One of the useful things about primates, is they have bilateral symmetry. So their left and right limbs are mirror images of each other. Thought you knew. BTW, subsequent finds of Australopithecine fossils confirm the first find. Would you like to learn about that?

that is claimed to belong to Lucy was found in completely different strata,

Nope. You're confusing a hoax where creationists said the knee was found kilometers away. That was a lie, too. Would you like to learn how that happened?

and her "ape-like hip" did not "get twisted during fossilization" from human to ape - it's fully ape.

Well, let's take a look...

Notice the femur fits into the hip at an angle, as human femurs do. This knock-kneed posture allows efficient walking, unlike other apes, that have a straight angle requiring an inefficient rocking gait when they walk.

Lucy's arms and legs were not found intact - they were broken pieces fitted together "based on inference, however reasonable".

See above. BTW, this has been confirmed by other finds of Australopithecines. Creationists deny the fact, but it's just "wishful thinking."

Like I said, these guys are under a lot of pressure to dig up something to "prove" evolution,

As your fellow YE creationist, Kurt Wise admits, the fossils found even when he wrote that paper provide "very good evidence for macroevolutonary theory."

 

[The Barbarian]

Something comes along and challenges your world view. Must be a conspiracy theory. Yep.

First, it has to be a challenge. That requires evidence. Tough game to play, but it works. "I really want to believe this!" is not evidence. It's perfectly valid as a conspiracy theory, but if you want to do science, evidence is required.

 

[Larniavc]

Something comes along and challenges your world view. Must be a conspiracy theory. Yep.

Something comes along and challenges my world view without any evidence.

 

[friend of]

Something comes along and challenges my world view without any evidence.

You need evidence just look at the state of the world. That's all the evidence I need.

 

[The Barbarian]

The state of the world completly refutes your claims. If you can't cite any evidence, maybe there's a good reason for that.

 

[The Barbarian]

I don't think he hated God. He hated Christians of certain churches he didn't like.

Then why did you say he did?

Can't find any place here where I said he did. Link?

 

[Phoneman-777]

Very true, I tried to simplify as much as possible and went a bit too far. Actually maybe if just scrap the attractiveness part at the end of 3. That generalizes it to include any number of reasons, including both attractiveness and that some organisms will survive while others don't, leaving it as...
1) The body is built by proteins, which are built from DNA.
2) DNA mutates, a child's DNA will differ ever so slightly from the parents.
3) Some organisms within a population reproduce more than others.

So, to those that doubt evolution, which of those 3 things do you find false? If none, then you accept evolution in at least some capacity.

Evolution has to explain where the genetic assembly instructions came from or explain how could proteins arise directly from primordial soup amino acids without DNA.

Evolution assumes chance mutation caused DNA information to arise.

The mathematical probabilities for such a thing coming to pass are equivalent to the probability of a tornado going through a junk yard and assembling a Boeing 747 with a space shuttle sitting on its back with a fully functioning satellite in the cargo bay ready to take off.

None of you would ever suggest a tornado could accomplish such a thing, but you confidently claim that similar improbabilities in the theory of evolution which may as well be impossible not only occured, but are easily seen.

 

[Phoneman-777]

Like many things connected to evolution, things are a little more complex than you'd like them to be (the bolding below is mine):

Sickle cell trait: A balanced polymorphism​

Sickle cell conditions are a classic example of balanced polymorphism.​

In humans, each gene contains two copies (alleles), one inherited from each parent. Mutations can affect one allele or both. In some genetic conditions, like SCD, these mutations can have a detrimental effect.​

When both copies of a gene are affected, this causes you to have a dangerous, often life threatening condition. But if only one copy is affected, it sometimes can create a certain health benefit. This situation is called balanced polymorphism.​

When it comes to sickle cell conditions, one affected copy is responsible for SCT, which protects against malaria. If both copies are affected, this results in SCD, a dangerous blood disorder.​

Having different copies of the gene may give you a survival advantage in regions where malaria is common. This allows the affected gene to continue being more common in a community.​

Can Someone with Sickle Cell Anemia Get Malaria?

Learn about the link between sickle cell and malaria and how your genetics may protect you against infection.

www.healthline.com

​

​

OB​

BLACK PEOPLE STILL GET VERY SICK! LOL

Sickle Cell Anemia is NOT a "positive" mutation - a person may not get malaria but is still very sick. I thought mutations were supposed to be a BENEFIT to the organism, right?

I can't believe anyone would argue such a thing, especially in our day of hyper racial sensitivity, but maybe I can, considering Darwin's racist subtitle: "The Preservation of the FAVORED RACES in the Struggle for Life".

 

[Phoneman-777]

You're not accepting His word as it is. Our image of God is not in our bodies. Why should God need nostrils or eardrums? It is in our spirits and souls.

Actually, most of them do very little. You have about a hundred of them that were present in neither of your parents. A few are harmful. A very few are useful. Natural selection sorts it out.

Whoaaa...hold on a minute.

Genesis 2:7 KJV plainly provides us the formula for man:

Body (elements of the Periodic Table) + Breath ("Breath of Life" aka "Spirit of Life") = Living Soul.

A Living Soul comes into existence as a consequence of the union of the Body and the Breath of Life and ceases to exist at the disunion of the Body and Breath of Life, much in the same was as:

Bulb + Electric Current = Emission of Light

Bulb - Electric Current = Cessation of Light

 

[Phoneman-777]

This is a classic illustration of the way natural selection works. Suppose people in a malaria area have a 50% chance of getting severe malaria if they are homozygous for normal hemoglobin, but won't get it if they are hetrozygous for the sickle cell genes. (I used those numbers to make the demo simpler for you, but if you like, I can adjust them for more precise numbers)

Suppose that two homozgous normals have children. All of them will also be normal and about half of them will die without leaving offspring.

Suppose one homozygous and one heterozygous person have children. About 3/8 of them will die without leaving offspring, meaning 5/8 will live and reprosuce, and that these people will leave more descendants.

Suppose two heterozygous people have children.
About 1/4 will have sickle cell disease and die without leaving offspring.
About 1/2 of them will be heterozygous and will not have malaria.
About 1/4 of them will be homozygous for normal, and about half of them will live to have offspring
About 5/8 of their offspring will also live to reproduce.

Does this suggest to you why sickle cell mutations tend to persist in malaria are

I can't believe you think a person with Sickle Cell Anemia is equal to a healthy human being.

 

[Phoneman-777]

Well over 90%, compared to chimps, and correspondingly less to other apes, mammals, etc.

Which is about right, considering we are both mammals, but in different orders.


About 50%, I think. Which is about right considering that we are both eukaryotes, but in difference kingdoms.

I think you just proved my point for me.


Nope. We have Precambrian deposits still here and there. Erosion is not constant and equal in all areas. In fact, there are still a few places on the Earth where the geologic column exists in complete form. Would you like to learn about that?


Turns out, things like folding, overthrusts, and vulcanism also interfere with uniform erosion. You've been badly misled on this.

North Americans should breathe easy: New research confirms that the continent has eroded very little over the past 1.5 billion years and, in all likelihood, won’t shed much ground in the next billion years, either.

Although the conclusion sounds like a no-brainer — earth scientists have long suspected that the oldest parts of the North American landscape have been quite stable — it has been difficult to confirm. Now, using a specific set of geochemical markers, a team of researchers has found a way stitch together the continent’s erosional history over the past 2 billion years.

Why North America Won't Erode Away

Chemical signatures in ancient rock in the continental crust of the North American craton have shed light on the erosion history of continent and show why continents seem to stick around for a long time.

www.livescience.com

It didn't until genetics and
the structure of DNA made it clear how that happens. Darwin's great discovery was how populations change over time. The mechanisms for assembly were determined later. And they cleared up a major problem with Darwin's theory. Would you like to learn how that happened?



The difference is in the blueprints. When DNA functions were discovered, it became clear how mutations changed the blueprints over time. God being God, He knew that evolutionary processes work better than design.

Engineers are now copying evolution to solve problems that are too difficult for design, but can be solved by mutation and natural selection. These "genetic algorithms" copy what living populations do, and they are very effective. Turns out God knew best, after all.

The "design" people are uncomfortable with a Creator that wise and capable.

It's like talking to a brick wall.

It only takes 10 million years to wash everything into the ocean, which means EVERYTHING had SIXTY TIMES THAT LENGTH OF TIME to wash into the ocean, and yet the fossil record is intact all over the place.

What about the Flood? You do realize that a Global Flood with no Ark would force evolution to start from scratch all over again, right?

 

[Phoneman-777]

Guess how I know you never read the article that phrase was carefully edited out of. Because you never read it, you were easy prey for the guys that gave it to you. I'm not accusing you of dishonesty; I'm suggesting you are too trusting of dishonest people. Would you like to see the whole paragraph?

All of this points to the shallowness of creationist use of quotes. In scholarly work, the use of quotations is intended to show an understanding of the relevant literature and is, in effect, a representation on the part of the person using the quote that she or he is intimately familiar with the author's work and positions. Not only are the people using this quote unfamiliar with the article it came from or Gould's work in general, they are even unfamiliar with the literature on the creationism/evolution conflict.

- John (catshark) Pieret

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists-whether through design or stupidity, I do not know-as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. - ​

Stephen Jay Gould​

Be careful who you trust. And always read the source if you want to quote. Could save a lot of embarrassment.

See above. I'm not saying you're guilty of dishonesty here. I'm just suggesting you be a little less trusting until you read the source yourself.

I suggest you stop reading nonsensical "science" and start by reading true science. Helium Diffusion tests expose the flaws of radiometric dating. How is it that helium in a zircon that is supposed to be "millions of years old" is still there when there's not possible way that should be?

You're essentially arguing that an open bottle of Coke sitting on the counter bubbling has been sitting there for months, not minutes.

 

[Phoneman-777]

Guess how I know you never read the article that phrase was carefully edited out of. Because you never read it, you were easy prey for the guys that gave it to you. I'm not accusing you of dishonesty; I'm suggesting you are too trusting of dishonest people. Would you like to see the whole paragraph?

All of this points to the shallowness of creationist use of quotes. In scholarly work, the use of quotations is intended to show an understanding of the relevant literature and is, in effect, a representation on the part of the person using the quote that she or he is intimately familiar with the author's work and positions. Not only are the people using this quote unfamiliar with the article it came from or Gould's work in general, they are even unfamiliar with the literature on the creationism/evolution conflict.

- John (catshark) Pieret

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists-whether through design or stupidity, I do not know-as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. - ​

Stephen Jay Gould​

Be careful who you trust. And always read the source if you want to quote. Could save a lot of embarrassment.

See above. I'm not saying you're guilty of dishonesty here. I'm just suggesting you be a little less trusting until you read the source yourself.

I don't waste my time reading wrong data interpretation, just as you don't waste your time reading correct data interpretation.

Everytime I shoot down your ideas, you come up with nonsense to make 2+2 = 5.

I tell evolutionists there's no way there was a "Reducing Atmosphere" because that's an instant "Catch 22" and you all resort to gas light evidence. You can't rob the Earth of an Ozone Layer and expect anything but rapid creation of an Ozone Layer via split water molecules by the multiplied trillions per second.

You can't have an intact fossil record after the Earth has had 60 times the time needed to wash all the continents into the oceans every 10 million years.

You can't have rocks "millions of years old" there's still tons of helium atoms trying to escape into the atmosphere.

Dr. Mary Sweitzer's dino bones can't possibly be millions of years old if they found intact blood cells.

You can't have an "millions of years old" insect trapped in amber with living bacteria still in its abdomen.

And evolution can't explain away the phenomenal evidence for a Biblical Flood which created everything we see here in short chronology, not millions of years.

 

[Kale100]

1) Evolution has to explain where the genetic assembly instructions came from or explain how could proteins arise directly from primordial soup amino acids without DNA. Evolution assumes chance mutation caused DNA information to arise.

2) The mathematical probabilities for such a thing coming to pass are equivalent to the probability of a tornado going through a junk yard and assembling a Boeing 747 with a space shuttle sitting on its back with a fully functioning satellite in the cargo bay ready to take off.

So none of those 3 points you disagree with? Great, you accept evolution then.
1) Evolution senso-stricto only deals with changing life, not emerging life, what you are talking about is the realm of abiogenesis.
2) You forgot to site Georgio Tsukalos on that quote.

 

[Phoneman-777]

Can't find any place here where I said he did. Link?

Sorry, to which member are you referring?

 

[Phoneman-777]

So none of those 3 points you disagree with? Great, you accept evolution then.
1) Evolution senso-stricto only deals with changing life, not emerging life, what you are talking about is the realm of abiogenesis.
2) You forgot to site Georgio Tsukalos on that quote.

No, evolution can't have possibly happened at all.

Since the molecules for life would have been immediately attached and destroyed as soon as they came into existence, evolution solves the problem by telling us the primitive Earth had a "reducing" atmosphere, with no oxygen.

However, there would have been on Ozone Layer, which means solar rays would have bombarded the Earth and immediately produced and Oxidizing Atmosphere and Ozone Layer, a "Catch 22".

No reducing atmosphere = no evolution.

 

[Occams Barber]

BLACK PEOPLE STILL GET VERY SICK! LOL

Sickle Cell Anemia is NOT a "positive" mutation - a person may not get malaria but is still very sick. I thought mutations were supposed to be a BENEFIT to the organism, right?

I can't believe anyone would argue such a thing, especially in our day of hyper racial sensitivity, but maybe I can, considering Darwin's racist subtitle: "The Preservation of the FAVORED RACES in the Struggle for Life".

Go back and read the post.

There are two versions of the Sickle Cell gene.

One version results in Sickle Cell Trait (SCT). A person with the SCT version is 60% less likely to catch malaria and will not suffer from Sickle Cell Anaemia. The result is positive.
The second version is Sickle Cell Disease (SCD). A person with the SCD gene can catch malaria and can contract Sickle Cell Anaemia. The result is negative.

Can Someone with Sickle Cell Anemia Get Malaria?

Learn about the link between sickle cell and malaria and how your genetics may protect you against infection.

www.healthline.com

Mutations can be positive, negative or neutral. Surely you knew this?


When Darwin used the term Favoured 'Races' as the Origins sub-title he was referring to species generally. It's a subtle difference but one which existed in Darwin's Victorian English usage. Origin of Species does not talk about humans. In any case, Darwin was not entirely free from the prejudices of his time but this has no bearing on his explanation of Evolution.

OB