So Old Yet So Modern

electroid · Oct 24, 2006

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v1i8f.htm

But even the strongly-biased Encyclopedia of Evolution admits:
Decades of persistent failure to "create life" by the "spark in the soup" method (or to find such productions in nature) have caused researchers to seek other approaches to the great enigma. 13 But even the most promising, technically sophisticated attempts to demonstrate the origin of life from nonliving chemicals are still guesses and gropes in the dark. For almost a century, many scientists have taught that some version of the "spark in the soup" theory "must" be true. Repetition of this idea as fact, without sufficient evidence, has done a disservice to new generations by capping their curiosity about a profound and open question. 14

electroid · Oct 24, 2006

My point is ladies and gents, is that you can bring up all the "evidence" you'd like but you can't bring up what really happened with no transistional evidence whatsoever. There is no way of knowing, and is why we still don't know, our origins.

TeddyKGB · Oct 24, 2006

Abiogenesis ("spark in the soup") is not evolution and plays no part in evolutionary theory or research thereof.

So drop it.

TemperateSeaIsland · Oct 24, 2006

electroid said:
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v1i8f.htm

This is abiogenesis, which involves chemistry. Evolution is a subject within biology. Neither one relies on the other.

electroid · Oct 24, 2006

Yes, my friends in denial, yes it does. In order for a species to mutate into another it must have added genetic coding.

electroid · Oct 24, 2006

Evolutionists try desperately to separate the naturalistic origin of life (abiogenesis) from the theory of evolution because they know that countless chemistry experiments have shown that inanimate matter cannot come to life through purely natural means.
The theory of evolution is dead on arrival. It requires some way for chemicals to form living, reproducing creatures that could mutate and evolve into everything else through natural selection. Chemistry denies evolutionists any plausible starting point. Evolution has no chance of winning the race because it is a non-starter.

Like so.

TeddyKGB · Oct 24, 2006

electroid said:
My point is ladies and gents, is that you can bring up all the "evidence" you'd like but you can't bring up what really happened with no transistional evidence whatsoever. There is no way of knowing, and is why we still don't know, our origins.

There are, in fact, hundreds of fossils with sets of features intermediate between easily-identifiable groups.

Human lineage is replete with ancestral remains that show the major developments - bipedality and skull morphology - in remarkable detail.

You are in way over your head here.

TeddyKGB · Oct 24, 2006

electroid said:
Yes, my friends in denial, yes it does. In order for a species to mutate into another it must have added genetic coding.

Then show what prevents the addition of genetic material to a genome.

Otherwise, drop it.

TemperateSeaIsland · Oct 24, 2006

electroid said:
Yes, my friends in denial, yes it does. In order for a species to mutate into another it must have added genetic coding.

How does abiogenisis relate to organisms increasing genetic information?

Increases in genetic info is explained and shown in duplication errors followed by mutation.

TeddyKGB · Oct 24, 2006

electroid said:
Like so.

Whoever wrote that is simply hoping you're naive enough not to realize (or blind enough not to question) that he made no connection whatsoever between abiogenesis and evolution.

electroid · Oct 24, 2006

TeddyKGB said:
There are, in fact, hundreds of fossils with sets of features intermediate between easily-identifiable groups.

Human lineage is replete with ancestral remains that show the major developments - bipedality and skull morphology - in remarkable detail.

You are in way over your head here.

No, it is you that is in over the head of scientific evidence with theories shooting through the ceiling of factual grounds.

michabo · Oct 24, 2006

electroid said:
If genetic change were random, what could ensure that enough favorable phenotype variation had taken place for selection to have produced the exquisite adaptations we see on earth today?

Selection pressures, which you've agreed exist.

Unfavourable mutations result in a greater chance of individuals dying without reproducing, favourable mutations result in a greater chance of surviving, reproducing and passing the genes along. Pretty straight-forward.

electroid said:
I don't agree that species evolve or "adapt", we'll say, into a completely different species over millions of years because of the proof it lacks in assuming that that's how it happened rather than examining it from the perspective of someone or a society who's lived for that amount of time.

There is evidence for this occuring, but the great majority of speciation events occured outside of living memory. That shouldn't be a big surprise.

electroid said:
Yes, my friends in denial, yes it does. In order for a species to mutate into another it must have added genetic coding.

Yes, that's a possibility. Also possibly is to not add genetic material but to remove it, or to alter preexisting material.

Why do you act like these options shouldn't be possible?

electroid · Oct 24, 2006

TemperateSeaIsland said:
How does abiogenisis relate to organisms increasing genetic information?

Increases in genetic info is explained and shown in duplication errors followed by mutation.

Show me.

Phred · Oct 24, 2006

electroid said:
I'm no longer creationist. I fall in and out as any person may agnostically.

Where is the observation and documentation for origin of species? And yes, that is essential to the macroevolution theory.

Where is the evidence? Darwin had none.

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html

That's more than you can read and understand in a month. Don't dismiss it because it disagrees with your belief. Understand that there is plenty of evidence and, should you ever actually read "origin of the species" instead of relying upon creationist sites to tell you what it says, you'll see Darwin had evidence as well.

I fully expect you to come back with a hand-waving display fully worthy of your anti-evolution ignorance. Please, surprise me.

.

michabo · Oct 24, 2006

electroid said:
Show me.

An earlier CF thread, not sure how much you'll be able to understand:

http://www.christianforums.com/t110746

Magnus Vile · Oct 24, 2006

electroid said:
No, it is you that is in over the head of scientific evidence with theories shooting through the ceiling of factual grounds.

Like much of the material presented so far it comes from http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org

As big a collection of PRATTs and strawmen as you're likely to find. Or it would be if these sites weren't so tragically common. You'd think that with all these experts disproving evolution someone would have, I don't know, actually presented some evidence? Or written a paper and presented their findings? Even if the money given to Nobel prize winners isn't of any interest to them they could always donate it to charity...

Don't they care about the needy?

TemperateSeaIsland · Oct 24, 2006

electroid said:
Show me.

A duplication error is when a fragment of genetic information is accidently duplicated giving an extra copy. link

This can range from a single codon to the entire genome ( In simpler organisms).

so I'll give you a simplified hypothetical example

AATAGCAGC

The above sequence is duplicated to give an error..

AATAGCAGCAATAGCAGC

The original sequence is still present so codes as before but it has a backup. Before the duplication any change to the sequence would have been detramental but with this duplication the genome has an area with little to no selective pressure so mutations are free to stay and this can result in novel proteins that can open up new biochemical pathways.

AATAGCAGCAATAGTAGA

EDIT - the link posted earlier is excellent http://www.christianforums.com/t110746

danaman5 · Oct 24, 2006

A duplication error is when a fragment of genetic information is accidently duplicated giving an extra copy. link

This can range from a single codon to the entire genome ( In simpler organisms).

so I'll give you a simplified hypothetical example

AATAGCAGC

The above sequence is duplicated to give an error..

AATAGCAGCAATAGCAGC

The original sequence is still present so codes as before but it has a backup. Before the duplication any change to the sequence would have been detramental but with this duplication the genome has an area with little to no selective pressure so mutations are free to stay and this can result in novel proteins that can open up new biochemical pathways.

AATAGCAGCAATAGTAGA

EDIT - the link posted earlier is excellent http://www.christianforums.com/t110746

This is exactly what I was talking about in my previous post on this thread. Thank you for stating it more clearly. I'd like to know how this is not "new information", considering that something is actually added to the DNA.

Jase · Oct 24, 2006

The irony of all this is that electroid says there is no proof for macroevolution, and we weren't there so we can't know and yet... she apparently takes the Bible and God as truth, despite there being not only no proof, but no evidence that it's accurate. Cognitive dissonance at its finest.

Dal M. · Oct 24, 2006

electroid said:
Genes do not mutate! Our DNA is steadfast.

And yet...

electroid said:
Scientific studies have shown us that species can lose genetic information either through loss of genes from selective breeding, or from mutation.

Electroid, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You aren't even consistent.

So Old Yet So Modern

Active Member

Active Member

A dude playin' a dude disgused as another dude

Mae hen wlad fy nhadau yn annwyl i mi

Active Member

Active Member

A dude playin' a dude disgused as another dude

A dude playin' a dude disgused as another dude

Mae hen wlad fy nhadau yn annwyl i mi

A dude playin' a dude disgused as another dude

Active Member

reason, evidence

Active Member

Junior Mint

reason, evidence

Well-Known Member

Mae hen wlad fy nhadau yn annwyl i mi

Reason

Well-Known Member

...more things in heaven and earth, Horatio...

Similar threads