Coccyx - tale of a creationist disinformation post

[pitabread]

so we need evolution to study biology or not?

To have a proper understanding of Biology, yes, you need to study evolution.

 

[xianghua]

You need evolution to understand biology.

can you give an example for something in biology that we cant understand without evolution?

 

[sfs]

can you give an example for something in biology that we cant understand without evolution?

Well, there's that genetic data you keep trying and failing to explain without evolution.

 

[xianghua]

Do you mean biology over all, or a single topic in biology?

lets say biology in general.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

lets say biology in general.

then yes. Yes you do.

 

[xianghua]

Well, there's that genetic data you keep trying and failing to explain without evolution.

first: i already explain it without evolution by claiming that many creatures were very similar at their creation event. secondly: even if it was true that we can explain it only by evolution its just a small part in biology. so we cant claim that evolution is important to understand biology. also: only design can explain the complexity of life since evolution cant explain it. so by this critieria above design is important to understand biology too.

 

[sfs]

First: i already explain it without evolution by claiming that many creatures were very similar at their creation event.

No, that doesn't explain the data at all. If all the species in question started out very similar at the creation, how did baboons get to be five times as different from humans as chimps are? What you provided wasn't an explanation -- it was some words you put together that allowed you not to think about the problem any further.

secondly: even if it was true that we can explain it only by evolution its just a small part in biology. so we cant claim that evolution is important to understand biology

You asked for an example. I gave you an example. I could keep giving you examples all day, but what would be the point?

also: only design can explain the complexity of life since evolution cant explain it.

That is an assertion that you've made repeatedly and failed to support every time you've made it.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

first: i already explain it without evolution by claiming that many creatures were very similar at their creation event.

...like perhaps the same creature before speciating into the divergent populations?

secondly: even if it was true that we can explain it only by evolution its just a small part in biology. so we cant claim that evolution is important to understand biology.

AAAAnnd That's where you fail at Biology. The Theory of Evolution literally underpins Biology.

also: only design can explain the complexity of life since evolution cant explain it. so by this critieria above design is important to understand biology too.

Because you failed that last bit, this bit is just an artifact of that failure. Go back and study Biology 101.

 

[Ophiolite]

It is Atheist/Agnostic venting. Not sure what there is to add.

Definitely venting*, but I can understand the passion and the anger and the frustration that arises from blatant lies told repeatedly by certain (many) creationists. Their tactics are despicable, their self indulgent ignorance is offensive and their moral position is shameful.

*@tas8831, it's just my opinion, but I think your informative posts would carry more weight if you avoided the Dawkins impression and just put the facts out there coldly and objectively. You will never convince the entrenched fundamentalists, but there is a world of lurkers who will respond more positively to objectivity. [And if I took my own advice I would, therefore, delete the first paragraph of this post.]

 

[xianghua]

No, that doesn't explain the data at all. If all the species in question started out very similar at the creation, how did baboons get to be five times as different from humans as chimps are?

2 simple explanations:

1) baboon was a bit more different in its original creation.
2) babbon is older than both chimp and human so its more different (since it get more mutations over time).

see? 2 simple explanations without using evolution.

You asked for an example. I gave you an example. I could keep giving you examples all day, but what would be the point?

the point is that this is a small parts in biology so its not so important for biology.

That is an assertion that you've made repeatedly and failed to support every time you've made it.

realy? take the olfactory system for instance. how many mutations we need to evolve a minimal olfactory system from a non olfactory system? if evolution is true it should be very easy to answer such a question.

 

[pitabread]

can you give an example for something in biology that we cant understand without evolution?

Anti bacterial resistance.

 

[xianghua]

Anti bacterial resistance.

in most cases (or at least in many cases) anti bacterial resistance is the result of a point mutaion in a specific antibiotic target site (say an important protein). but its not evolution of a new system, only a degeneration of existing part, so we can explain it by design too.

 

[pitabread]

in most cases (or at least in many cases) anti bacterial resistance is the result of a point mutaion in a specific antibiotic target site (say an important protein). but its not evolution of a new system, only a degeneration of existing part, so we can explain it by design too.

You've never explained anything by "design". So no you can't.

For what it's worth, mutation to an organism's DNA and then subsequent patterns of reproductive success as a result of environmental pressures is an example of biological evolution. This is what is observed with respect to populations of bacteria becoming resistant to anti-bacterial agents.

Whether you want to admit it or not, this is an example of evolution and why understanding evolution is important.

 

[sfs]

1) baboon was a bit more different in its original creation.

Five times as different is not a bit more different. And if the genetic differences were there from the creation, why do they look exactly like mutations? That's the thing you're supposed to be explaining, remember?

2) babbon is older than both chimp and human so its more different (since it get more mutations over time).

Okay, so that mean the baboon has to be close to ten times as old as humans and chimpanzees, and they've diverged from the One Original Primate genome by ~5%. So what should we see when we compare the baboon to another monkey, then? They'll have to be at least 5% diverged too, right?

see? 2 simple explanations without using evolution.

Two simple explanations that fail to explain the data. As I said before, you don't want to understand the genetic data -- you want it to go away.

realy? take the olfactory system for instance. how many mutations we need to evolve a minimal olfactory system from a non olfactory system? if evolution is true it should be very easy to answer such a question.

I seem to have been unclear on my complaint. You're supposed to be providing evidence for design. What you've written says nothing at all about design, nor is it evidence for anything.

the point is that this is a small parts in biology so its not so important for biology.

Yeah, but you're wrong. And where did you get the idea that you can tell biologists what is or isn't important for understanding biology?

 

[pitabread]

Yeah, but you're wrong. And where did you get the idea that you can tell biologists what is or isn't important for understanding biology?

It's always fascinating to watch someone who clearly doesn't understand a subject trying to argue that nobody else should try to understand it either.

 

[USincognito]

"Other than assertions and bait and switch antics, does [evolution] offer anything relevant?
Nope."

LOL

 

[Kaon]

The Theory of Evolution is foundational to modern biology and an applied science. So yeah, it's kinda relevant.

If you base your standard of truth on academics, then It is important.

Personally, I wouldn't follow something that doesn't use their own methods they claim are scientific foundation. Moreover, one is dependent on the academic paradigm, and paralyzed by impotence due to clever numbers game$.

If I wanted to severely doubt what I already know (based a paradigm in academia), and then be told twenty years later I was right, I would follow academia too. But, I don't the institution to know the truth - in science or spirit. Most people have been swindled into believing they need the remedial, primitive paradigm of academia. It makes them lame, and the entire world loses progress.

 

[xianghua]

You've never explained anything by "design". So no you can't.

since anti bacterial resistance can happen even if nature was the result of design- it can be explain by design too. so this is incorrect.

 

[pitabread]

since anti bacterial resistance can happen even if nature was the result of design- it can be explain by design too. so this is incorrect.

But there is no design explanation. That's the problem, you don't appear to understand the difference between simply asserting something versus actually explaining it. There is no design framework with which to explain anything.

Besides, anti bacterial resistance is a result of evolutionary processes that are known and documented. Asserting it's not seems kinda silly.

 

[xianghua]

Five times as different is not a bit more different.

95% similarity instead of 99% is a bit different.

And if the genetic differences were there from the creation, why do they look exactly like mutations? That's the thing you're supposed to be explaining, remember?

because they are indeed mutations, but not all of them, just most of them.

Okay, so that mean the baboon has to be close to ten times as old as humans and chimpanzees, and they've diverged from the One Original Primate genome by ~5%. So what should we see when we compare the baboon to another monkey, then? They'll have to be at least 5% diverged too, right?

i think i lost you here. to be clear: id cant predict the difference among creatures for the simple fact that we dont know how the original genome (of any species) was look like. we can just tell that many creatures (if not all of them) were very similar to each other at their original state.

Two simple explanations that fail to explain the data. As I said before, you don't want to understand the genetic data -- you want it to go away.

not realy. see above.

I seem to have been unclear on my complaint. You're supposed to be providing evidence for design. What you've written says nothing at all about design, nor is it evidence for anything.

1) since evolution cant explain it this is indeed evidence for design.

2) we also have positive evidence for design.

Yeah, but you're wrong. And where did you get the idea that you can tell biologists what is or isn't important for understanding biology?

i just mention a fact: evolution is a small part in biology. there are many creationists biologists who know biology just as well without believing in evolution. so you are wrong about that.