An Origins poll

[Biliskner]

I have read both Darwin and Dawkins, and they both agree with me. If you can find any citation from their works that suggests a fruit fly could evolve into a human, feel free to post it. It would not be the first time I had to eat humble pie.

No you are not. You are only displaying your ignorance about it.

No, it is not a contest in which TEs or creationists or naturalists "win". Which camp is right is irrelevant. What is important is that the truth "win" whatever the truth is.

i would so love to.
but i believe there was a post sometime during the week where we were having a conversation about Romans and I asked how you interpreted a passage in chapter 5. there was no response. so as i said... as much as i'd love to...

 

[Biliskner]

No, it is not a contest in which TEs or creationists or naturalists "win". Which camp is right is irrelevant. What is important is that the truth "win" whatever the truth is.

oh really? could've fooled me with the other TEs on this forum. maybe not you, but perhaps you were just speaking for yourself.

 

[Biliskner]

No you are not. You are only displaying your ignorance about it.

for onlookers who aren't posting, here is a link for your brains:

http://faithfacts.gospelcom.net/ev_origins_d.html

their given:
1. definitions
2. tautology (ie: circular reasoning)
3. scientific validity
4. desperate measures to save a dying fish

of evolution, is almost everything i want to say on the subject.
and now that i've found this website, i do not need to write my own for my website
have fun!

 

[gluadys]

for onlookers who aren't posting, here is a link for your brains:

http://faithfacts.gospelcom.net/ev_origins_d.html

their given:
1. definitions
2. tautology (ie: circular reasoning)
3. scientific validity
4. desperate measures to save a dying fish

of evolution, is almost everything i want to say on the subject.
and now that i've found this website, i do not need to write my own for my website
have fun!

I will need time to read this site at leisure. But I only had to as far as the third paragraph to find an error:

Evolution is the process that produces greater genetic complexity.

It is not. Evolution is the process of changing the frequency of alleles in the gene pool of a species.

 

[Biliskner]

I will need time to read this site at leisure. But I only had to as far as the third paragraph to find an error:

Quote:

Evolution is the process that produces greater genetic complexity.

It is not. Evolution is the process of changing the frequency of alleles in the gene pool of a species.

it is not? you're saying the apes and the humans genome was all contained within our common ancestor? (let's say it was an amoeba) but the difference between ape and human is the "frequency of alleles changing?" what the heck? (of course, we're assuming that apart from God's Spirit in Man, Man is the same as ape, which I am assuming you agree with, but hey correct me if i'm wrong.)

 

[PaladinValer]

Humanity is a primate, not an ape, though apes are primates as well.

 

[Biliskner]

Humanity is a primate, not an ape, though apes are primates as well.

Humanity is the pinnacle of God's Creation but not the full purpose.
Apes are for humans to rule over as stated as clear as day in Genesis.

So... not sure what you're saying there. Are you saying like:

Cars have wheels. but a car is not a motorbike.
But motorbikes have wheels as well.

 

[gluadys]

it is not? you're saying the apes and the humans genome was all contained within our common ancestor? (let's say it was an amoeba) but the difference between ape and human is the "frequency of alleles changing?" what the heck? (of course, we're assuming that apart from God's Spirit in Man, Man is the same as ape, which I am assuming you agree with, but hey correct me if i'm wrong.)

Please don't put your words in my mouth. I am saying his definition of evolution is wrong and giving you a correct definition.

Basically all evolutionary changes occur as new mutations produce new alleles and various mechanisms change the frequency of alleles, yes. That does not mean the human genome was "contained" in anything other than a human being.

The taxonomic classification of humans has always been in the ape family, since the time of Linnaeus. It might interest you to know that Linneaus believed chimpanzees and human ought to be put in the same genus. His preferred name for the chimpanzee was Homo troglodytes. But he gave in to pressure to keep them separate, which is why you will find chimps in the genus Pan.

"I demand of you, and of the whole world, that you show me a generic character ... by which to distinguish between Man and Ape. I myself most assuredly know of none. I wish somebody would indicate one to me. But, if I had called man an ape, or vice versa, I would have fallen under the ban of all ecclesiastics. It may be that as a naturalist I ought to have done so."
--Carl Linn, AKA Carolus Linnaeus, pre-Darwinian creationist, and the "father of taxonomy", -in a letter to J. G. Gmelin, February 14, 1747

 

[gluadys]

Humanity is a primate, not an ape, though apes are primates as well.

Actually, humans are biologically and taxonomically apes too. We belong to the Primate order to the sub-order Catarrhines (Old World Monkeys and Apes), to the super-family Hominoidea (all apes including gibbons), to the family Hominidae (all apes except gibbons i.e. orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans), to the tribe Homininae (humans and their extinct kin, the Australopithecines), to the genus Homo (which includes several extinct species such as H. habilis, H. erectus, etc. as well as ourselves) and to the species H. sapiens.

Of course this applies only to taxonomy and biology and says nothing whatever about our spiritual status as made in the image of God.

 

[gluadys]

for onlookers who aren't posting, here is a link for your brains:

http://faithfacts.gospelcom.net/ev_origins_d.html

Well, I have read the opening section on definition and my comments are below. Given the extremely poor quality of this section, I don't know whether it is worth reviewing the rest.

Evolution is the process that produces greater genetic complexity. More specifically, evolution is the development of new species via an increase in the quantity and quality of genetic information through random natural processes.

This is an incorrect definition. This is what creationists used to call macro-evolution. Evolution within the bounds of a species used to be called micro-evolution by creationists (and still is by scientists when it is necessary to make a distinction at all). I expect the recent (i.e. within the last 10 years or so) rejection of "micro-evolution" to refer to within-species change has come about because creationists recognize that it validates the fact that evolution does happen. It is a way to get around the challenge from their opponents to define the difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution as anything other than a difference in scale.

The development of new species is the end-point of evolution. Once you have a new species, you don't have any more evolution other than the potential production of still more new species. But the starting point of evolution is a change in the frequency of alleles---including the newly-minted alleles known as mutations. Between the starting-point and the ending point the shifting of alleles generates variations in a species, changing it over time.

By shifting the definition of evolution to refer only to macro-evolution, creationists have brought the majority of evolutionary process into their paradigm without acknowledging that it is evolution. Instead they have chosen to refer to micro-evolution as "variation", "natural selection", "adaptation" and deny that these key evolutionary concepts refer, as they have done ever since Darwin, to evolution.

Variation (sometimes inappropriately called "micro-evolution") is horizontal drift or adaptation. It can often be identified as a cyclical phenomenon. Evolution ("macro-evolution"), on the other hand, is vertical change, in which new genetic information is added (an expansion of the gene pool) to produce a higher (more complex) form of life.

How many things can you get wrong in a single sentence? Let me count the ways:
1. "vertical" change. No such thing. Evolution is not a ladder. Evolutionary change is branching, sometimes radiating, but never vertical.
2. "new genetic information" Sometimes happens, sometimes doesn't. Evolution can happen in the absence of any "new genetic information" or even when "genetic information" is lost. (depending on how "information" is defined.)
3. "higher/more complex" form of life. Since evolution is not a ladder the term "higher" is meaningless. Nor does evolution necessarily move in the direction of "more complex". Evolution can also be lateral or even simplifying.

And note: Here the author even confirms that what s/he is calling "evolution" used to be referred to as "macro-evolution". The nomenclature is just as way to avoid using "micro-evolution" to refer to the evolution that occurs within the bounds of the species. So this whole "variation is not evolution" nonsense is just the old "micro-evolution vs. macro-evolution" chestnut in a new dress.

Even though the evidence is circumstantial, few people in Darwin's time or today, including the strictest biblical creationists, doubt that variations occur within kinds.

Superficially true. But it ignores that in Darwin's day the term "kind" in Genesis was assumed to refer to "species" since "species" is simply a latinized version of "kind". They also defined "species" much more narrowly than we do. For example, many scientists and breeders considered the different breeds of plants and animals to be different species/kinds if they bred true. Pigeon fanciers considered poulters and tumblers to be different species, not variations of a single species. Similarly, cattle breeders laughed at the notion that Herefords were related to/descendants of Longhorns. Some scientists even speculated that the differing "races" of humanity were, in fact, different species/kinds and created separately from the species represented by Adam and Eve.

The potential power of evolution is the theoretical ability of a lower kind of being to change into a higher order of being, for example from a frog to a dog,

One wonders by what criteria the author decided whether the frog or the dog was "a lower kind of being". This is a judgment call the theory of evolution does not make. It also explicitly denies that a frog could evolve into a dog.


By the way, the author seems to be anonymous---who is s/he? what credentials does s/he have that would give us confidence that s/he knows what s/he is talking about?

Silly me. S/he has already blown away any shred of credibility s/he could possibly claim in just the first of the ten sections of her/his opus.


But in this case, there was not even any variation that occurred. You had both light-colored and dark-colored moths to start with, and light-colored and dark-colored moths in the end. (Recent revelations even indicate that these moth experiments were doctored. Textbook photographs are actually of moths glued to tree trunks-a place on the tree they do not actually land!)

This experiment did not address the origin of variation. It addressed the process of natural selection. The experiment showed that natural selection (in the form of bird predation) did, in fact, change the proportional representation of the variants. So it confirmed that natural selection was not just a theoretical mechanism, but one that could be observed in real life. The staged photos are a red herring. They were staged so that it was easier to display the difference in camouflage. Moths do sometimes, though rarely, land on tree trunks. And birds are just as happy to prey on them when they land on tree-trunks as when they land on their preferred resting places among leaf-covered branches. So the staged photographs don't affect the results of the experiment.

Human skin or hair color, for example, is easily understood this way. It was not mutation or other genetic change that causes such variation. The ability for such variation has always been in the genes.

This is an outright lie (though I don't know if the author is aware of that.) It certainly was genetic change + natural selection that introduced variant hair and skin colour into human populations.

As for the "ability for such variation" always being in the genes--of course it is. Genes have always had the ability to mutate. A variation in a gene is by definition a mutation. And genetic variation/mutation is the basis of morphological variation.


Creationists: this is an excellent example of why you come across as being incredibly ignorant about evolution. It is because you swallow ignorant drivel like this without ever cross-checking it against what the theory of evolution actually says. As long as you follow ignorant leaders, you yourselves will remain ignorant. When the blind lead the blind....

 

[PaladinValer]

Really? Well, it would explain why I am going to be a future monkey's uncle *

*One of my sisters who is currently pregnant is a huge monkey/ape-lover, so I call her still by her old college nickname, "Apie" (April), in an affectionate way.

 

[gluadys]

Wish her well, and do enjoy time with your little monkey nephew or neice.

 

[Biliskner]

Please don't put your words in my mouth. I am saying his definition of evolution is wrong and giving you a correct definition.

Basically all evolutionary changes occur as new mutations produce new alleles and various mechanisms change the frequency of alleles, yes. That does not mean the human genome was "contained" in anything other than a human being.

i was paraphrasing.
(ie: not the same as "put your words in my mouth")

if you don't speak clearly and conscisely and spout jargon that becomes stuff that is worthy of only hitting the fan then expect more paraphrasingin your years to come.

why get all defensive. sheesh.

Basically all evolutionary changes occur as new mutations produce new alleles and various mechanisms change the frequency of alleles, yes. That does not mean the human genome was "contained" in anything other than a human being.

new alleles ? what do you mean "NEW" alleles? give me an emperical example. a fish with no wings spouts wings so that it becomes a fly?
please explain your explaination with emperical examples that everyone can understand

 

[Biliskner]

Thank You.

(sorry about forgetting my manners)

 

[gluadys]

Thank You.

(sorry about forgetting my manners)

Apology accepted. But there are better ways than "paraphrasing" to ask for an explanation. It sounded like you were mocking me.

btw--have you ever thought of looking up words you don't understand?

alleles are variant forms of a gene. Genes are sections DNA found at a specific point (called a "locus") on a specific chromosome. The gene is composed of a sequence of nucleotide bases, some of which code for amino acids to be assembled into a protein, which actually does work in a cell. A gene is, in effect, a recipe for a protein.

Now if you know anything about recipes, you know that they vary from cook to cook. No two cooks use exactly the same recipe for chili con carne.

Genes vary the same way as recipes vary. And each variant recipe for the protein a gene codes for is called an allele.

Straight-forward example: blood types. In every person it is the same gene or set of genes that codes for blood types. But some code for the A recipe, some for the B recipe, and some for the O recipe. Each of us gets two genes, which may or may not use the same blood-type recipe. The combination is what determines your blood-type.

By comparing the blood-types of millions of people we can determine if some of these are more frequent than others. (They are: AB blood-type is the rarest because you need one A gene and one B gene and both of these are less common than the O gene.)

Now, if all of these alleles work more or less the same, and people get along fine with any of these blood types, the frequencies are not likely to change from one generation to the next (Mendel proved this). But, if for some reason, one of them leads to more sickness, more premature death, than the others, its frequency will decrease. Conversely the frequency of the others will increase. Such changes in frequency in a group of alleles is the fundamental basis of evolution.

(Side-note: sometimes a change of frequency can occur for other reasons than poor health. I learned recently that in several countries of East Asia, a myth has grown that men whose blood type is B are undesirable as husband material. Some women refuse to date a B-type man. If this behaviour becomes very common, the B blood type could become less frequent in these countries, even though, in other respects, it is just as good as the others.)

Oops. Almost forgot. Since a mutation changes the DNA sequence of a gene, each mutation is like a new variation on the recipe. New alleles are produced by mutations to an existing allele.

 

[Dark Matter]

Bump. Theywhosowintears and Knownbeforetime...

Theywhosowintear and Knownbeforetime, I am very interested in your answers to my questions regarding your Bible interpretation. These questions are in post #52 and 53 (page 6 of this thread). They got lost in the dialogue, but they are very important and foundational questions.

If you could make time to answer them, I'd be very grateful.

Dark Matter

 

[Dark Matter]

i was paraphrasing.
(ie: not the same as "put your words in my mouth")

if you don't speak clearly and conscisely and spout jargon that becomes stuff that is worthy of only hitting the fan then expect more paraphrasingin your years to come.

why get all defensive. sheesh.

I have never known Gluadys to be anything if not concise and clear. You've got to be kidding! Rather than accuse gluadys of spouting jargon, why not clearly provide evidence of the jargon.

new alleles ? what do you mean "NEW" alleles? give me an emperical example. a fish with no wings spouts wings so that it becomes a fly?
please explain your explaination with emperical examples that everyone can understand

If you don't know what alleles are, then it is your responsibility to research it, not berate gluadys with requests for words that "everyone" understands. It seems some private messaging occured, and an apology was given; however, my comments are not about rudeness, but about false accusations and attitude. If you don't know what alleles are, then should you be arguing so fiercely in this forum? Humble yourself in areas you are weak and learn from others, and argue more strongly in areas where you have sufficient knowledge to do so. It is obvious that you are not in such a position in this topic (as most of us are not when discussing genetics).

Dark Matter

 

[Biliskner]

err i know what alleles are

 

[Biliskner]

what do you mean by "new alleles?"
i have green and blue alleles for my eyes. 'new alleles' = black eyes (phenotypically) after a mutation of the current allele so that it becomes a "new" allele?

my tutor never used the term "new allele" - like i said, what IS a 'new allele'?

re: Dark Matter - what the heck are you on about?

re: gluadys - if you'd just said the last sentence of your last post it would've made everything make sense. 'new alleles' is a wierd concept - because the allele is not new, it is a mutated allele, meaning the modification of an existing allele, you can call that a "new" allele if you like, but then i'm technically a new person every few days 'cos all my skin is shed and i have new skin/dna/rbcs etc. etc. etc. etc.

anyway this thread is gone to the hole, not coming back.
(some would be in their seats right now )

 

[Biliskner]

Basically all evolutionary changes occur as new mutations produce new alleles and various mechanisms change the frequency of alleles, yes. That does not mean the human genome was "contained" in anything other than a human being.

eye alleles will always be eye's. they cannot change into wings.

if that is so then amoebas will always amoebas. therefore the world as we see it cannot possibly have spawned from evolution's mechanism. therefore evolution is bung.

that fits perfectly with God's Word in Genesis.
"in the beginning God created animals according to their kinds... and it was good"

what is human will always be human, what is fish, will always be fish.

and also* in that context, 'new alleles' is non-sensical (but also in the secular sense it is stupid, no one uses those two words together) - there is zero evidence of genetic information increasing... anywhere.

./me out.