Coccyx - tale of a creationist disinformation post

[pitabread]

How does the process of evolution occur?

Mechanisms: the processes of evolution

 

[pitabread]

Just so there is no misunderstanding by new-arrivals, humans and chimps are only about 70% similar.

Tomkins is infamous for his deliberately incorrect approaches to calculating sequence comparisons. Nobody takes him seriously.

 

[USincognito]

It would be helpful if the theory of evolution could explain anything, other than variations within species.

Dan

Why? It's not meant to. Do you think Plate Tectonic Theory should explain neucleosynthesis, sedimentation and orogeny?

 

[USincognito]

Have you ever read this by Dr. David N. Mention (PhD Biology, Brown University)?

"Although Darwin spoke longingly of the chance origin of life from simple chemicals in some ‘warm little pond,’ there has never been evidence that anything remotely like this has ever happened. In fact, the evidence for chemical evolution is so embarrassing, some evolutionists insist that the whole idea of the origin of life is not even a part of the theory of evolution but rather is a creationist plot to discredit evolution!" [David Menton, "The Origin of Life." Creation Ministries International, 1993,
Adapted from: St. Louis MetroVoice, August 1993, Vol. 3, No. 8]​

Sound familiar?

Dan

An appeal to authority and a 25 year-old letter to the editor?

 

[Brightmoon]

Tomkins and Menton , oh man !!!!!!!LOL!!! You’re really scraping the bottom of the barrel . No one pays attention to either of those pseudoscientists

 

[Jimmy D]

I'm getting at context. It explains what the IDers wrote.

If ToE has origins as Darwin speculated, then it has spontaneous generation, chemical evolution and abiogenesis. Aren't these more in line with pseudoscience than a valid scientific theory. It's part of the history of evolutionary thought. ToE didn't just spring up one day. You can't just ignore all the crackpot stuff that went on and say it's a better theory today.

Creation science states what is written in the Bible and that while the Bible isn't a science book, science does back up the Bible. In this case, God created humans as a separate species from other land animals.

During Darwin's time, mutationism was believed to cause new forms and new species. Isn't mutation what drives ToE today?

Mutation part of evolutionary biology
Mutation - Wikipedia

Mutationism
Mutationism - Wikipedia

Good morning JB.

It seems as if you are getting hung up on Darwin's writings. Sure his speculations on the origin of life were wrong, I'm sure a lot of 19th century thoughts on biology were mistaken, but they have little relevance to modern science.

I find it amusing that you label his speculation, which he never claimed was anything other than that, pseudoscience and then go on to use the term "creation science" though.

Maybe you can tell me exactly what creation science actually says about anything, as far as I'm aware it's absolutely useless, what are it's applications in medical research, geology, etc? What contributions has it made to our understanding of the world about us?

Now we're getting somewhere. What has biology moved on to? How does what Gerd Mueller said not fit with what the IDers wrote?

We've been over this haven't we?

The tone and implication of Borg's article is that "evolutionists" are "admitting" that the TOE is "flawed" and "full of holes" whereas the point of the presentation was to suggest that new areas of research should be incorporated into the framework of the theory. If you don't see this I don't know what else to say.

The IDers continue to state that it shed light of the deficiencies in Darwinian theory. They think traditional Darwinian theorists and even the ESSers are still far away. There were two traditional Darwinian theorists at the meeting who poo pooed Mueller.

Yeah, it's pretty much all "IDers" do, arguments from increduilty. Maybe they could get on with a bit of research of their own - like what ID actually is and how it works.

Maybe you could tell me what these "traditional darwinian theorists" actually said, or should I just take your word for it?

I think what the IDers wrote was to show the discrepancy as to what evolution apologists present to the media and what they say behind closed doors. IDers state that Mueller was poo-pooed as ESS isn't necessary. Certainly, what he said wasn't reported by major news organizations even though the Royal Society meeting is big stuff in evolutionary circles. How did Mueller's presentation relate to your views on biology today? Is ESS not necessary or valid addition?

LOL, closed doors. It was published in their journal, journalists and authors attended the meeting, the presentation in question and commentary on it is all over the internet including Huffington Post, Guardian, BBC etc.

This is just typical of the subtle and snide propaganda creationists resort to.

You are acting as if Mueller has some sort of radical or dissenting view, whereas he is merely trying to encourage debate about the direction of research. The debate is not about doubting the facts of common ancestry or biological evolution, so you are barking up the wrong tree.

I don't really want to discuss Mueller any further, I've said my piece. Neither do I want to discuss 19th century science, sure it paved the way for our modern understanding of nature, but other than that I don't really see how it's relevant.

I would be interested in hearing your views on the diversity of life on Earth though.

 

[Jimmy D]

Perhaps here:

"The theory performs well with regard to the issues it concentrates on, providing testable and abundantly confirmed predictions on the dynamics of genetic variation in evolving populations, on the gradual variation and adaptation of phenotypic traits, and on certain genetic features of speciation. If the explanation would stop here, no controversy would exist. But it has become habitual in evolutionary biology to take population genetics as the privileged type of explanation of all evolutionary phenomena, thereby negating the fact that, on the one hand, not all of its predictions can be confirmed under all circumstances, and, on the other hand, a wealth of evolutionary phenomena remains excluded. For instance, the theory largely avoids the question of how the complex organizations of organismal structure, physiology, development or behaviour—whose variation it describes—actually arise in evolution, and it also provides no adequate means for including factors that are not part of the population genetic framework, such as developmental, systems theoretical, ecological or cultural influences." [Gerd B. Mueller, "Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary." Royal Society of Biological Sciences, 2017, p.3] ​

Dan

So no mention of how life originated? Cheers.

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Mechanisms: the processes of evolution

I was expecting something more scientific than a few worn-out talking points. My question was:

"How does the process of evolution occur?"​

How about explaining evolution from an information standpoint. That is, what is the process by which genetic information is changed to transform one life form, say, a running land-creature known as the Pakicetus, into an entirely different lifeform, such as a deep-diving, sea-going whale. If your answer is simply, "mutations", then show us how that is possible.

Dan

 

[pitabread]

How about explaining evolution from an information standpoint.

What do you mean by "information"? You mean DNA?

 

[Shemjaza]

I was expecting something more scientific than a few worn-out talking points. My question was:

"How does the process of evolution occur?"​

How about explaining evolution from an information standpoint. That is, what is the process by which genetic information is changed to transform one life form, say, a running land-creature known as the Pakicetus, into an entirely different lifeform, such as a deep-diving, sea-going whale. If your answer is simply, "mutations", then show us how that is possible.

Dan

Evolution works by mutations adding diversity then selection acting on that diversity.

I assume you accept that mutations change the genome of a life form. Creationists have never, in my experience, demonstrated that there is any kind of barrier to mutations building up over the generations to the point that separated populations would need to be defined as separate species.

The information increases when a mutation copies a section then point mutations act on the newer copy. Completely novel traits can enter the population this way.

If that doesn't fit your definition of information could you please define how you are using the term and if there is an objective way to measure it?

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Tomkins is infamous for his deliberately incorrect approaches to calculating sequence comparisons. Nobody takes him seriously.

Clemson University-trained geneticist Jeffrey Tomkins, and his co-conspirator against the religious orthodoxy of evolutionism, Harvard-trained geneticist Nathaniel Jeanson, are throwing the establishment for a loop, no doubt. But so are some of the fine researchers at the (Intelligent Design) Discovery Institute. This is a recent paper by Tomkins and Jeanson:

Genetics Confirms the Recent, Supernatural Creation of Adam and Eve

In the paper, they explain the excuse the establishment gives for not accepting creation, and even ID science papers is based on circular reasoning:

1. The conclusions of YEC scientists are not true, so the peer-review process is closed to them.

2. YEC conclusions cannot be accepted unless they have been peer-reviewed.

They also quote devout evolutionist Dennis Venema, who "explains":

"The reason Christian anti-evolutionary approaches are absent from the mainstream scientific literature is not because scientists are theologically or philosophically biased against them, but rather because they offer little in the way of useful tools for making accurate predictions about the natural world."​

Baloney. Creation and ID scientists have exposed serious flaws in the evolutionary model, which would have remained hidden to this day if not for them. Venema himself has been exposed as one who is more than willing to stretch the truth a bit:

https://evolutionnews.org/2018/05/d...the-genome-former-biologos-fellow-backs-down/​

Perhaps Venema is more concerned with his dogma being exposed if creation scientists are allowed into the peer-review process.

Whatever the case, the suppression of creation research by the establishment using the authority and power of the sword of the state, is reminiscent of the days of the Inquisition.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Why? It's not meant to. Do you think Plate Tectonic Theory should explain neucleosynthesis, sedimentation and orogeny?

Let me rephrase: It would be helpful if Darwinism could prove macroevolution.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

An appeal to authority and a 25 year-old letter to the editor?

Nothing has changed. It is still an embarrassment, and a subject consistently avoided.

Dan

 

[Skreeper]

Let me rephrase: It would be helpful if Darwinism could prove macroevolution.

Dan

Been there, done that. That's why we teach evolution in schools and not ID.

If the ToE was false we wouldn't have the medicine we have today. ID doesn't get us anything, it's completely useless.

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Tomkins and Menton , oh man !!!!!!!LOL!!! You’re really scraping the bottom of the barrel . No one pays attention to either of those pseudoscientists

Those are highly educated scientists who have caught on to the scam perpetuated upon the masses by the religious cult of evolutionism, which is a true pseudo-science. There is certainly nothing scientific about it. It is at best a historical philosophy. Even evolutionary geology and paleontology is based on mindless ignorance.

Dan

 

[pitabread]

Clemson University-trained geneticist Jeffrey Tomkins, and his co-conspirator against the religious orthodoxy of evolutionism, Harvard-trained geneticist Nathaniel Jeanson, are throwing the establishment for a loop, no doubt.

Uh, no. Tomkins' comparisons of human and chimp genomic sequences was based on an incorrect methodology. That's it.

 

[Bible Research Tools]

What do you mean by "information"? You mean DNA?

Genetic, cellular, neuronal, etc.. Information, not morphology.

Dan

 

[pitabread]

Genetic, cellular, neuronal, etc.. Information, not morphology.

Dan

Genes, cells and neurons are three different things. I still don't know what you mean by "information" with respect to those.

Usually when the term information is used with respect to life forms it refers to DNA content/sequences. For which the mechanisms described in the prior linked site explain how DNA can be duplicated and modified.

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Evolution works by mutations adding diversity then selection acting on that diversity.

That is obvious within a species. How does macroevolution work?

I assume you accept that mutations change the genome of a life form. Creationists have never, in my experience, demonstrated that there is any kind of barrier to mutations building up over the generations to the point that separated populations would need to be defined as separate species.

No one denies mutations, that I am aware of. On the other hand, nor has any demonstrated that mutations can change one distinct kind, such as a chimpanzee, into another distinct kind, such as a human. Rather, all modern genetic research points to the statistical impossibility of such a transformation.

The information increases when a mutation copies a section then point mutations act on the newer copy. Completely novel traits can enter the population this way.

Novel, but not transformational.

If that doesn't fit your definition of information could you please define how you are using the term and if there is an objective way to measure it?

I'll use a simple example that all evolutionists seem to believe has occurred. Demonstrate the informational changes required to change a chimpanzee into a human, or vice versa.

Dan

 

[Brightmoon]

What exactly is evolutionary geology? Rocks don’t evolve.