A Question for Creationists

[Smidlee]

Another erroneous statement. Small changes are a matter of life and death. Sickle cell disease is caused by a point mutation (that is a mutation in a single DNA base, you cannot get any smaller than that) and it is a cause of life (in areas where malaria is common) and death (where malaria is not common). There are hundreds of other examples.

By all means, keep moving your goalposts and trying again, this is starting to get fun.

LOL . your example of natural selection is like two man running from a bear. Of course one man doesn't have to out run the bear just the other man. Both sickle cell disease and malaria is bad news in the long run.

 

[lasthero]

Probably the same way our immune system does.

I don't think they're the same thing, but I'll admit, this is sort of virgin territory for me. What way would that be?

 

[CabVet]

LOL . your example of natural selection is like two man running from a bear. Of course one man doesn't have to out run the bear just the other man. Both sickle cell disease and malaria is bad news in the long run.

Yet, it proves that you are wrong. Go figure.

Since these small changes are not a matter of life or death natural selection can't select them.

Furthermore, natural selection is not about life and death, it is about leaving more descendents.

 

[Smidlee]

Yet, it proves that you are wrong. Go figure.

Again no one doubt natural selection when it comes to life or death situations but ToE requires a lot more than that. I referred to feeling a pea under a pile of mattresses not a hand grenade.

I don't think they're the same thing, but I'll admit, this is sort of virgin territory for me. What way would that be?

I don't remember exactly where I read it. I also remember reading something that trees and plants has ways to communicate to each other.

 

[CabVet]

Again no one doubt natural selection when it comes to life or death situations

Except you:

Since these small changes are not a matter of life or death natural selection can't select them.

but ToE requires a lot more than that.

The theory of evolution does not require more than that. The caricature of evolution that you came to know of through creationist websites does.

 

[Smidlee]

The theory of evolution does not require more than that. The caricature of evolution that you came to know of through creationist websites does.

Actually I was surprise how some evolutionist were very skeptical of natural selection. Are you claiming Noble (the video I linked to ) is a creationist? I don't just read creationist & ID websites since i think the best evidence against evolution comes from evolutionist.

 

[lasthero]

I don't remember exactly where I read it. I also remember reading something that trees and plants has ways to communicate to each other.

So you're good example of natural selection comes from a source you can't even remember?

Also...what does communication between trees and plants have to do with this?

 

[lasthero]

Actually I was surprise how some evolutionist were very skeptical of natural selection

 

[CabVet]

I don't just read creationist & ID websites since i think the best evidence against evolution comes from evolutionist.

Nice, how about you show some of that evidence now?

 

[mzungu]

LOL . your example of natural selection is like two man running from a bear. Of course one man doesn't have to out run the bear just the other man. Both sickle cell disease and malaria is bad news in the long run.

I am sorry but you are wrong, In Africa where malaria is prevalent; fatalities occur mostly in children. Dead children cannot reproduce, on the other hand the ones who suffer from sickle cell anaemia live long enough to reproduce. Thus although sickle cell anaemia is a serious threat it does not kill the afflicted quickly like malaria does.

The above clearly shows that natural selection favours those who have the sickle cell anaemia trait in malaria prevalent areas. Natural selection depends on the ability of an organism to reproduce.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Get a dictonary and look up scarcism.

Lol, the irony. If you weren't a creationist I'd suspect your post was an attempt at humour.

IMO the world view today is more about "meism" than the Christian world view.

The world was created for man to have place to live and commune with its Creator.

As I said, that sort of self-centred, self-important worldview doesn't usually square with wanting to be ignored.

A world view that think matter created itself out of nothing is abssure.

Abssure? As you brought the subject of dictionaries up, do you happen to own one yourself?

A world view that says sdomething as complex as DNA came out of the primoridal soup is evenmore absurd.

I suspect incredulity is an argument you apply to everything you regard as complex, probably through necessity.

If you are happy with your world view, fine, but unless you know more about Christianity than is evident so far, don't tell me what its world view is

I don't need to now, you're doing a splendid job of showing us.

 

[frogman2x]

"Kind" is not a scientific term. Did yo mean species? Clade? Genus? Breed (sub-species)? Or something else, entirely?

IMO, "kind" and "species" is the same thing. I think evolutionist try to avoid using kind for obvious reasons.

Someone said I ignored some evidence you presented in one of you post to me. If I did, it was not intentional..

 

[frogman2x]

'Scarcism' is not in my dictionary. Or any dictionary.

Congraulations, you have just gotten a promotion in the typo police.

 

[frogman2x]

How do you say something this ironic and not physically hurt yourself?

Silly is as silly does.

 

[lasthero]

I think evolutionist try to avoid using kind for obvious reasons.

Probably because there's nothing even approaching a consistent definition of it. You say it's synonymous with 'species', some creationists say it's broader than that, others say it's less specific. I've heard creationists say that there are only two kinds of bird 'kinds' (flying and non-flying), I've heard them say all bacteria are a kind, where there are millions of different species of them, and I've never, NEVER, seen any creationist even attempt to make a real list of kinds. There are multiple definitions for species, true, but at least you could make a list of 'species' that, for the most part, everyone will agree on. If you ask two creationists what a kind is, chances are you'll get two answers that would force you to create two completely different charts to describe it. 'Kind' basically seems to be whatever the creationist in question wants it to.

Also, if 'kind' means 'species' then you need to answer how Noah got so many different species on the Ark, because there are literally millions of different species on this planet today, and that's before we get into all the ones we know have gone extinct.

Congraulations, you have just gotten a promotion in the typo police.

It seems to me that, if you're going to tell someone to look something up in a dictionary, you should take particular care to spell the word correctly, even moreso than usual.

 

[frogman2x]

I didn't call you a liar.



After looking him up, I can't find any indication that said he suggested what came out of the 'soup' had DNA, which you claimed he said.

I didn' claim he said it. He says the first life form. That automatically makes it somentng with DNA and DNA is to complex to have formed accidently

>>But he didn't, so how could he propose that whatever came out of the 'soup' had DNA? Your statements aren't even consistent.<<

It is you trying to add to what I said that is the problem. I specifically said DNA had not been discovered then, so he could not have said anything about it. Did that lie form have DNA?

Firstly, that's not correct. All life forms we're aware of have DNA. That doesn't mean they all do.

Not true. All life forms have DNA. Actually all life forms do not have DNA. As I rememember some bacteria have RNA but no DNA.

[/QUOTE] Also depends on what you call 'life'.,[/QUOTE]

Life is something that had DNA or RNA. Tha is a proven fact.

Secondly, no one ever proposed that DNA just popped into existence.

Sure you have. If the first life form just popped into existence, then DNA came along at the same pop.

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Read it. You don't have to accept any of it, but at least argue what's actually being propose, not some ridiculous parody of it.

I know what abiogenesis is and I know they do not know what the first, seond, third etc life forms were. It is amusing yo take something you don't know and try to squeeze all the variett of life we have today into a grand guess. BTY, I think you are going to be demoted in the typo police. You left the "d" off of "propose." Don't you hate it when yoou complain about others then do the same thing and they catch you?

DNA was never PROVEN. There is no 'proof' in science. Read a book.

Then how do we know we have it? As I remember someone received a Nobel prize for it discovery.

I never said I was. I have a high school level understanding of it on my best day. But that's still leagues above someone who knows less than nothing about it - you.

Are you really not intellectually capable of discussing somethign without including snotty remarks? Do you really not realize it exposes YOUR character and does not harm to mine. If you don't mind, I certaily don't. Keep it up, the newbees need to know wha kind of person you are. FYI, I had some science in college and passed the courses.

I can't. As far as I understand, they were likely simplistic, single celled organisms. But my inability to name them doesn't actually demonstrate them.

That is the common evo disclaimer. It had DNA so it was not simple orgainism.

It in no way invalidates the mountain of research into evolutionary theory. What's your point?<<

Nthing wrong with tones of research, but saying the researsh has move he ToE one baby step forward to being proved is not true. If science neve proves anything, then the ToE will neve become a proven fact.

It's strong evidence.

It is not.

Evidence doesn't have to be 100% proven.

If it isn't proven is is speculaiton not evidence.

In fact, it never is. Do you understand the concept of 'proven beyond a reasonable doubt'?

Of course do you? It has been proven beyond any doubt at all that there are more than one blood type.

You want me to prove that a explanation that deals with biology is, by definition, a biological explanation?

Iiiit may be but exsplanatin ae not always accurate.

What would you consider a biological explanation to be, if not an explanation that deals with biology?

A biological explanation by definition woud have to include biology.

I did ask a question. Do you understand how breeding works?

I am not going to answser your condensending quetions. If you have point to make, make it.

Focus, dude. We're talking about natural selection, which you're claiming can't happen.

I have not said it didn't happen dude. I have said it can be proven and even if it could, it would not be a mechanism for evolution.

Let's focus on that, for a moment. Do you accept that it's possible to breed animals for specific traits?

Of course. That has been proven.

Because if natural selection wasn't possible, if it wasn't possible to select specific traits in an animal and change them over time by encouraging these traits in mating, breeding wouldn't be possible.

What can happen with man intervening, may or may not happend "naturally." So you know wht determines the traits of animals?

If it's not possible to, say, creating a rabbit population to have stronger legs over time by selecting rabbits with traits that give stronger legs, then breeding can't work, because that's essentially what breeding is. Do you understand at least that much?

The breeding will work and you have no evidence that there is a gene for stronger legs. You can work with genes that are already there, bu you can't tinker enough to add a new gene.

 

[lasthero]

He says the first life form. That automatically makes it somentng with DNA

No, it doesn't. You're putting words in his mouth.

Did that lie form have DNA?

No. Abiogenesis does not speculate that the precursor to life on this planet had 'DNA'.

If the first life form just popped into existence, then DNA came along at the same pop.

No one ever proposed that. You're just adding that in.

I know what abiogenesis is

No, you don't, because if you did, you wouldn't be talking about DNA popping out of nowhere, which is not what abiogenesis proposes.

Don't you hate it when yoou complain about others then do the same thing and they catch you?

Yeah, I make typos, from time to time. The difference, of course, is that people can still read and understand what I'm saying. You mess up words so badly that, at times, it's impossible to even tell what you mean.

. If science neve proves anything, then the ToE will neve become a proven fact.

No one said it was. No theory is a 'proven fact'.

If you have point to make, make it.

Oh, I have.

I have said it can be proven and even if it could, it would not be a mechanism for evolution.

It is a mechanism for evolution, and it's been observed. If natural selection was impossible, selection of any kind would be impossible - including breeding. If you accept that we can breed animals for specific traits, then why can't you accept that the same thing happens in nature?

Of course. That has been proven.

No, it hasn't.

If something is 'proven', then it's not up for debate, it can't be changed, it can't be shown to be wrong. Everything is science is subject to change, so nothing is ever said to be 'proven', no matter how well supported it is.

The breeding will work and you have no evidence that there is a gene for stronger legs.

As Naranoia pointed out, there is no 'stronger leg' gene. Regardless, there doesn't need to be. That's where mutations come in.

 

[lasthero]

I think evolutionist try to avoid using kind for obvious reasons.

By the way, quick question that's been bugging me lately - how does the 'after its kind' thing apply to organism that reproduce asexually and can't mate with other members of their species at all?

 

[Loudmouth]

A good example of natural selection is when bacteria is being attacked by antibiotics it start to change it's DNA at hot spots as well as sending the SOS to other bacteria to do the same. The bacteria who happens to find the right combination to break the antibiotic hold survives and those that don't dies. Usually this come with a cost ; slower reproduction.

Reproducing while others are dying is faster reproduction last I checked. Also, the antibiotic resistant strains I work with have the same generation time as wild type, so you are making yet another empty assertion.

What evolution needs is small changes which will add up over a long time which will transform a leg into a fin. Since these small changes are not a matter of life or death natural selection can't select them.

Why would it need to be a matter of life or death? All you need is differential reproduction where a mutation confers a higher probability of having offspring.

 

[Loudmouth]

Not true. All life forms have DNA. Actually all life forms do not have DNA. As I rememember some bacteria have RNA but no DNA.

And we are supposed to accept you as an expert in biology capable of determing if the theory of evolution is true or not? Seriously?