Darwinism IS Design

[Bushido216]

Where in Mendel's law does it state anything about mutations or not? IIRC, Mendel didn't look at genotypes, but phenotypes, the results of the genotype. It wasn't for another 90 years that Watson and Crick plagerized their way into determining something so simple as the double helix. I should say that I almost stopped readind when you told me that no one had crossed a dog and a monkey. No sh17! As I already stated they are reproductively isolated populations! No scientist under the sun has ever stated we should be able to cross organisms from two separate genera! Even if the above weren't true, you can't change our own definitions. A definition is a definition, that's like me trying to tell you what a "kind" is.

And I never said that "micro-evolution" caused everything. Micro-Evolution merely refers to the change in an allele frequency. When a gene mutates, the new gene will either increase or decrease, it's not that hard. And yes, mutations happen. And the theory of abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution.

Evolution isn't a march towards greater or lesser complexity, it just is. The D. melanogaster that were changed to bread and meat flies weren't any more or less complex. They were, however, speciated. They simply didn't reproduce with the control population. A lack of want is a method of speciation. Your point about bacteria falls under this same pitfall. A bacteria will become more suited to its environment not necessarily more complex. Want proof? There is more weight of bacteria on our planet than of trees.

Okay, I don't see how this one thing about resistance changes anything. What probably happened was that the allele increased in strength and frequency. Oopsie! That's Micro-Evolution.

And linguistics arose as the complexity of our brain arose. It's not like anyone can just randomly talk. Chimpanzees, however, can be taught sign-language. Hmm... As well, language is taught. It doesn't evolve. It's not an automatic function of human development. Languages were developed once we had the capacity for them.

I'm not going to comment on proteins since Chi Cygni did.

I wonder what website you got this from?

 

[rmills]

Bushido216 said and I quote,

“Macro- and Micro-Evolution are the same thing, really, except they are used as short-hand ways of describing the same thing on two different time scales.”

Rmills replied,

“Microevoultion does not cause the change or increase the structural or genetic properties of a biologic. Thus, Microevolution is NOT Macroevolution.”

If macroevolution is a “molecules to man” concept, or an offspring of some species developing a better organ than the parent, and sending that beneficial mutation on to its next offspring to perfect the development further, eventually resulting in a monkey with wings or something, I still venture the question, how can this be true….

Bushido216 said and I quote,

“Macro- and Micro-Evolution are the same thing, really, except they are used as short-hand ways of describing the same thing on two different time scales.”

Once again, microevolution plus time does not equal macroevolution.

 

[Bushido216]

Bushido216 said and I quote,

“Macro- and Micro-Evolution are the same thing, really, except they are used as short-hand ways of describing the same thing on two different time scales.”

Rmills replied,

“Microevoultion does not cause the change or increase the structural or genetic properties of a biologic. Thus, Microevolution is NOT Macroevolution.”

If macroevolution is a “molecules to man” concept, or an offspring of some species developing a better organ than the parent, and sending that beneficial mutation on to its next offspring to perfect the development further, eventually resulting in a monkey with wings or something, I still venture the question, how can this be true….

Bushido216 said and I quote,

“Macro- and Micro-Evolution are the same thing, really, except they are used as short-hand ways of describing the same thing on two different time scales.”

Once again, microevolution plus time does not equal macroevolution.

I have shown you several times. What part are you failing to grasp?

 

[rmills]

I have shown you several times. What part are you failing to grasp?

Sorry bro, I am just totally incapable of wrapping my feeble mind around that one.

But you do seem to be a lot smarter than me, so IF you contend that the formulation of a theory starts with observed fact, then I guess I have no way of connecting Mendel’s law to the validity (or lack therein) of evolution. Nope, no way. Especially if Mendel’s law showed that no monkey becomes a bird. I guess what I need to do is wipe clean the slate of observed fact and just start building theory on whatever my feeble mind can conceptualize? I guess we cannot even begin to draw from the laws of Thermodynamics when we talk fundamental basis for (or again, lack therein) evolution.

The concept I really fail to grasp is how scientific fact can be something that is not ever observed! Has a species developed into a more physically or genetically complex species? What science can prove without a shadow of a doubt is that any species shows more regression physically and genetically than they show the supposed quantum leaps in complexity and advancement. We (human or not) are not in a perpetual state of evolution, we are in a “perpetual” state of degradation! Reality check folks!

The Theory Of Evolution went from small time failure to prime time TV, we buy it because some scientist says he or she knows something to be true. This is not science, this is propaganda.

I forget who, sorry, but someone wrote:

“If evolution happened, then widespread death occurred before man evolved. But if death came before man and death was not a result of Adam’s sin, then sin does not exist. If sin does not exist, then we have no need for a savior.”

Naturally, if we have no need for a savior, there is no logical reason for a god. Equally, if there is no God, evolution works fine. It all equates to one thing, no God, no creation. In this case, science is whatever it wants to be and you can throw out the Bible and the beads with last night’s TV dinner.

 

[lucaspa]

Mendel’s Laws state that genes are not mutated but rather “shuffled” from one generation of species to the next. We observe this because we see it in simple forms such as dog breeding. BTW, no one has managed to cross breed a dog with a monkey. Variant combinations are formed but different genes. This is also a simple way of showing that microevolution + time does not equal macroevolution. If this is not the case, simply show me the video tape.

Mendel's Laws don't state what you say they do. They state that the phenotype is related to the genotype and that genes come in discreet packets. Mendel also acknowledged that sometimes the genes are altered such that brand new characteristics are introduced. That is, brand new alleles of genes are created. That's the mutation part.

I did show you the "video tape". That's all those papers showing new species.

And of course a dog can't crossbreed with a monkey, they are separate species. But those papers document one population that ended up as two populations that don't crossbreed, either. So, if monkey and dog are macroevolution because they don't crossbreed, then so is that. Sauce for the goose.

Microevoultion does not cause the change or increase the structural or genetic properties of a biologic. Thus, Microevolution is NOT Macroevolution.

Yes, sometimes it does. When genes are duplicated or transposons are inserted, you get additional genetic material.

The Law of Biogenesis never has supported spontaneous generation or the creation of life from non-living matter. Once again, if this is not the case, just show me the video tape.

The Law of Biogenesis states that complex, multicellular organisms don't arise from non-living matter. It never addressed simple life forms. And a videotape is on the subordinate pages of this web site -- http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/ -- enjoy!

Fruit flies do not represent nor propose any level of change in complexity or viability.

How did you decide that? We have flies that can now live on bread instead of fruit. Flies that can live in colder weather than the original flies. That last certainly represents a change in viabilitiy.

Needless to say, if we wanted to observe faster generations turn over time or simplicity of genetic structure added to faster generation time, we would study common bacteria that produce more of its own than any other species at a faster rate. Thus, according to your THEORY of macroevolution, the common bacteria should have long since been a flying cow.

LOL! Why? Where have we selected for multicellularity and, once you get that, generation time increases, doesn't it? As it is, we have seen the evolution of complex new biochemical pathways in bacteria. Changes in the genome by microevolution such that the resultant organism has very little in common with the original.

Or at least we should see multi-cellular organisms that bridge the gap between single celled life and more complex multi-cellular life, thousands or even millions of these bridges must exist! Where are they? Why have parasites not developed the ability to exist outside of a host structure?

1. We have seen the bridge. Did you know that nearly all bacteria exist as unicellular and multicellular organisms? Also, look up volvox on the web.
2. Parasites started out as independent organisms living outside the host. They earn a better living being inside the host. What is the selective pressure to go back?

To further the fruit fly debate, it is known and observed fact that the fruit fly that created offspring resistant to pesticides had a resistance to that particular chemical structure prior to being subjected to it.

References? The titles of these papers gleaned from 2 minutes on PubMed say differently. Shall we discuss this in detail? That would be fun.
1: Vais H, Atkinson S, Pluteanu F, Goodson SJ, Devonshire AL, Williamson MS,
Usherwood PN.
Mutations of the para sodium channel of Drosophila melanogaster identify
putative binding sites for pyrethroids.
Mol Pharmacol. 2003 Oct;64(4):914-22.
PMID: 14500748 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

2: Diabate A, Baldet T, Chandre F, Guiguemde RT, Brengues C, Guillet P,
Hemingway J, Hougard JM. First report of the kdr mutation in Anopheles gambiae M form from Burkina Faso,
west Africa.
Parassitologia. 2002 Dec;44(3-4):157-8.
PMID: 12701378 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

3: Hemingway J, Field L, Vontas J. An overview of insecticide resistance.
Science. 2002 Oct 4;298(5591):96-7.
PMID: 12364782 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

4: Vontas JG, Hejazi MJ, Hawkes NJ, Cosmidis N, Loukas M, Janes RW, Hemingway J. Resistance-associated point mutations of organophosphate insensitive acetylcholinesterase, in the olive fruit fly Bactrocera oleae.
Insect Mol Biol. 2002 Aug;11(4):329-36.

Please explain for me the theory behind how intelligence that creates communication through speech happened. Why do no other species have Why does a monkey not communicate on the same level we do?

One reason, they don't have the FOXP2 allele that we do. It allows complex speech.
31. Molecular evolution of FOXP2, a gene involved in speech and language. Wolfgang Enard, Molly Przeworski, Simon E. Fisher, Cecilia S. L. Lai, Victor Wiebe, Takashi Kitano, Anthony P. Monaco, Svante Pääbo Nature 418, 869 - 872 (22 Aug 2002)

[quoteIf we as humans evolve, why have the complexities of linguistics not done the same? Why have our linguistics not exceeded the levels of 200 BC Latin, 800 BC Greek, or 1500 BC Vedic Sanskrit?[/quote]
What selection pressure is there to do so? That level has proven sufficient for all concepts that we have tried to impart.

If a child is raised secluded from human interaction, why does it not know how to communicate automatically with other species that it does come into contact with?

Because speech is genetic and under the control of evolution. You provided the answer yourself -- they are different species. The genetic modules in our brains are not the same as the ones in other species.

Why do the over 75 types of protein required to make DNA not create DNA themselves? I will stick them all (proteins) into a million scenarios and subject them to a million scenarios and still not get the proteins to cooperate on the level required to create one DNA strand.

Nonsense. That they could make DNA was demonstrated outside the organism in a test tube. Ever hear of PCR? It stands for polymerase chain reaction. It is quite a common lab tool now that uses only a few of these proteins to make millions of DNA strands.

Lets start with simple math. The odds of aligning by chance the simplest molecular structure (which would require over 650 protein molecules) with the proper amino acids and proper sequence is less than 1 chance in 10 to the 450th power according to the book Mathematical Proofs vs. Evolution
Extract from: The Collapse of Evolution, 2nd Edition by Scott M. Huse

Two fallacies here.
1. It's not chance. It's chemistry, and chemistry isn't chance.
2. Huse assumes that one and only one amino acid sequence will do the job. That's demonstrably false. Look at all the different cytochrome c amino acid sequences in organisms. They all do the same job. Not only that, but they all do it just as well as the other sequences. So we haven't even looked at all the sequences that can't do the job as well but can still do it.

Huse's argument is very old in the debate. It's GIGO.

Then move on to a complex being. The genetic info there exceeds a library of 4000 books of information, but the chances that it will all fall together is ONLY somewhere in the ball park of 10 to the 40,000th power.

But it didn't fall together by chance. It was designed and put together by natural selection.

Read Genetics, 2nd edition by Monroe W. Strickberger.

I've read other genetic texts. What specifically do you want me to read about?

Quoted from Charles Darwin in the Origin of Species, “The distinctions of specific forms and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links is a very obvious difficulty.”

But then go on to the rest of the paragraph. Darwin solves the difficulty, doesn't he? Tsk, tsk. You can't get truth by misquoting people.

A list of readings that would take way to long for me to quote from include,
James Marchant, “Letters and Reminiscences” regarding Mendel’s Law vs. Alfred Russel Wallace who eventually admitted to the fact that general characteristics of species remained within distinct boundaries.

Since Mendel's work wasn't rediscovered till after Wallace's death, this didn't happen. R

Raymond G. Bohlin, “The Natural Limits to Biological Change”

Read it. I couldn't find the limits. Please show us.

Norman Macbeth, “Darwin Retired, An Appeal To Reason”

Pierre-Paul Grasse, “Evolution Of Living Organisms” which states that no matter how numerous, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.

By themselves, no. Natural selection is a two-step process.
1. Variation, of which mutations are a part.
2. Selection.

Together they produce evolution. But not singly.

 

[lucaspa]

But you do seem to be a lot smarter than me, so IF you contend that the formulation of a theory starts with observed fact, then I guess I have no way of connecting Mendel’s law to the validity (or lack therein) of evolution.

Sure you do. Testing. All the population genetics literature is connecting Mendel's law to evolution.

Especially if Mendel’s law showed that no monkey becomes a bird.

Where did it show that? Mendel's genetic are exactly what natural selection needs to work. You have independent, particulant genetic material that can be kept in the population. From there, Mendel's math shows that new alleles will inevitably move from very rare to being in the whole population if there is selection pressure. Here, I'll show you the equations below.

The discipline of population genetics did the basic mathematical formulas. Remember that, in the absence of any outside influence, such as natural selection, the frequency of an allele does not change from generation to generation. That is, if you have a population and 100 and 10 individuals have allele A and 90 have allele a, the next generation will be exactly the same: 10 A and 90 a. This is called the Hardy-Weinberg Law. Frequencies are symbolized mathematically by p and q. W is the relative fitness value. So we have W(A), W(B), and W(AB). The last is the fitness of the heterozygote in a sexually reproducting population.
So, for the first generation the frequency p of A in the population is: p^2 +2pq + q^2. Straight Mendelian genetics.
The frequency of p in the next generation after selection is: p' = p^2W(A) + pq W(AB)/p^2W(A) + 2pq W(AB) + q^2 (WB).
Now, if W(A) and W(AB) are higher than W(B), it can be seen that p' will increase. Not chance, but pure determinism.
You can see all this and a lot more in Chapters 4 and 13 in Futuyma's Evolutionary Biology, 1999.
Remember Hardy-Weinberg. The frequency of an allele remains unchanged from generation to generation in the absence of outside influence. Therefore, the fitness of a new mutation is defined as the ratio of the number of progeny actually produced divided by the number of progeny expected by Mendelian genetics. This is going to be greater than one in the case of favorable mutations. From that we get a selection coefficient such that fitness = 1 - s.
Now, doing the math we find that the advantageous allele A increases in frequency, per generation, by the amount delta p = (1/2)spq/(1-q).
If you look at the equation, you see that delta p is positive as long as s is greater than 0, even if it is very small. Eventually p will equal 1, which means that every member of the population will have the allele. Thus, a characteristic with even a miniscule advantage will be fixed by natural selection. "Fixed" means every individual will have the allele.
So, as long as a trait is at all, even by the smallest degree, beneficial, then the odds that it will spread to become all the population is 100%.

I guess what I need to do is wipe clean the slate of observed fact and just start building theory on whatever my feeble mind can conceptualize?

No. You just need to start looking at the observations instead of the feeble minded conceptualizations of the creationists you have been reading.

I guess we cannot even begin to draw from the laws of Thermodynamics when we talk fundamental basis for (or again, lack therein) evolution.

Because the SLOT doesn't say what creationists say it does. Evolution is perfectly compatible with SLOT.

Has a species developed into a more physically or genetically complex species?

Yes. That is what I showed you in that bibliography you didn't read.

What science can prove without a shadow of a doubt is that any species shows more regression physically and genetically than they show the supposed quantum leaps in complexity and advancement.

Where? Cite the scientific papers, please.

We (human or not) are not in a perpetual state of evolution, we are in a “perpetual” state of degradation! Reality check folks!

Actually, the populations of Andean and Himalayan highlanders are in the process of acquiring traits to live at high altitude that us lowlanders don't have. Individuals "degrade" and die, but evolution deals with populations.

“If evolution happened, then widespread death occurred before man evolved. But if death came before man and death was not a result of Adam’s sin, then sin does not exist. If sin does not exist, then we have no need for a savior.”

It is very clear from the text that physical death was always present. This particular man-made theory is not Biblical. Spiritual death comes to each of us as we disobey God. Adam simply represents each and every one of us. And thus each of us has need of a savior. Remember, Jesus died for our sins, not Adam's.

It all equates to one thing, no God, no creation. In this case, science is whatever it wants to be and you can throw out the Bible and the beads with last night’s TV dinner.

Ah, the old "evolution is atheism" fallacy. Won't work here, Mills. This is a Christians only Forum, remember. We know better.

 

[lucaspa]

Without all the mumbo-jumbo linguistics and long lists of theory based quotes to confuse folks into believing that you may know what you are talking about, I would have to say that the above statement is false to degrees that are not even laughable anymore.

What's false about it? Please be specific about what you are laughing at. Do you disagree that the only biological reality is species? Or do you disagree that macroevolution = speciation?

I will gladly let you make science what you want it to be. Theory is theory until it is observed fact. Maybe you need to ask your father of evolution where the term “micro-evolution” came from. Just a bunch of creationists?

Theories are always theories. Theories explain facts. Once a theory acquires a lot of supporting evidence, we conclude it is (provisionally) true and treat it as a fact. Evolution has long since passed that point.

Microevolution is a term coined by evolutionary biologists. It refers to changes within a population. What the creationists tried to do is hijack "macroevolution" and change it. Macroevolution is speciation. As the papers I listed demonstrate by observation -- facts -- microevolution results in new species. Therefore microevolution results in macroevolution. Based on facts. Or didn't you read any of the papers?

The above statement equates to a proposal that if dad has a bigger nose, and dad has a kid with a bigger nose, and kid has a kid with a bigger nose, that absolutely means that monkey turned into man at some point.

No, it doesn't. That's your strawman version. What happens is that the bigger nose becomes present in every member of the popuation. And as these changes accumulate, the resulting population several generations down the line is very different from the population you started with. Many of the alleles (forms of genes) in the original population are gone and new alleles that weren't there at the start are now there in everyone.

Go ahead and whip out the videotape of the monkey turning into man

I can show you the individual fossils that connect humans back thru 3 species to a species that is clearly not human and not ape.

and I will quit trusting the fact that the creator himself can better describe what he did and how he did it than Don Lindsay can.

The Creator describes to us how He created in the evidence He left us in His Creation. So, I can either trust the Creator or I can trust you on what you say the Creator did. Hmm, trust you or trust the Creator. That's a no-brainer. I trust the Creator!

BTW, I know who Don Lindsay is. You don’t want me to go there.

Good for you. Why not? Because the comedy is so bad I'll weep?

Read the Bible. It si the best science book ever written, and it is not even a science book.

The Bible is a terrible science book. The OT is based on Babylonian science and that science has long ago been shown to be wrong.

This statement "Not everyone means the same thing when they say "evolution". " quite obviously aplies to you. Micro-Evolution IS Macro-Evolution? Then what do you say that science is?

People like Don Lindsay have to make the artificial distinction between micro and macro evolution depsite the observations to the contrary. They have to make up fanciful theories without observations. Read Eldredge again:

"The triumph of evolutionary biology in the 1930s and 1940s was the conclusion that the same principles of adaptive divergence just described -- primarily the processes of mutation and natural selection -- going on within species, accumulate to produce the differences we see between closely related species -- i.e., within genera. Q.E.D.: If adaptive modification within species explains the evolutionary differences between species within a genus, logically it must explain all the evolutionary change we see between families, orders, classes, phyla, and the kingdoms of life."

Now, show us by observation of logic where Eldredge is wrong. I've given you some of the observations that back Eldredge.

 

[lucaspa]

If macroevolution is a “molecules to man” concept,

It's not. Your premise is wrong. You are using the creationist strawman of macroevolution.

or an offspring of some species developing a better organ than the parent, and sending that beneficial mutation on to its next offspring to perfect the development further, eventually resulting in a monkey with wings or something, I still venture the question, how can this be true….

Simple. You have a population of individuals. Each individual is different. Each represents a design. Mutations are simply modifications or new designs. Now, you have an environment that sets the design problem -- only certain designs can survive in the environment. Now, you have more individuals than the environment can support. So you have a competition among the individuals/designs. Not all designs can survive because not all the individuals are going to make it. So, the designs that do the best survive. Those individuals have offspring and, because of inheritance, those offspring will also have the winning designs. But the offspring are also going to be slightly different. A few will have even better designs for that particular environment. The competition is run again. Again, the best designs win.

Now, two things happen.
1. If a mutation appears that offers a better design, this process guarantees that within several generations every individual will be descended from that lucky individual and have the design.
2. The changes accumulate. Because inheritance preserves the good designs, you don't start over each generation but can build on the previous designs. In this way many small changes accumulate until they are a big change.

Once again, microevolution plus time does not equal macroevolution.

Sorry, but yes, it does. As populations adapt the changes accumulate from generation to generation. As speciation occurs and separates gene pools, the changes between lineage accumulate until the differences between descendent species is very large. Macroevolution.

Look at the diagram in Originand you will see:
http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin/texts/origin_6th/origin6th_04.html

 

[Bushido216]

I know that lucaspa made you look the fool, but since I started this arguement, and became a part of it, I'll finish it.

But you do seem to be a lot smarter than me, so IF you contend that the formulation of a theory starts with observed fact, then I guess I have no way of connecting Mendel’s law to the validity (or lack therein) of evolution. Nope, no way. Especially if Mendel’s law showed that no monkey becomes a bird. I guess what I need to do is wipe clean the slate of observed fact and just start building theory on whatever my feeble mind can conceptualize? I guess we cannot even begin to draw from the laws of Thermodynamics when we talk fundamental basis for (or again, lack therein) evolution.

Well, I do appear to have a greater grasp on evolutionary theory, but I wasn't going to mention it... beyond that, Mendelin genetics never said anything of the sort. Mendelin genetics said that the phenotype of an organism is related to their genotype. What's wierd is that evolutionary theory never said that a monkey becomes a bird. Of course there is no observation of a monkey -> bird transition, because there wasn't one. And don't you even dare give me the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. I won't be responsible for my actions.

The concept I really fail to grasp is how scientific fact can be something that is not ever observed! Has a species developed into a more physically or genetically complex species? What science can prove without a shadow of a doubt is that any species shows more regression physically and genetically than they show the supposed quantum leaps in complexity and advancement. We (human or not) are not in a perpetual state of evolution, we are in a “perpetual” state of degradation! Reality check folks!

I already showed you that evolution isn't a march towards complexity. Infact, I showed you speciation via the fruit fly experiments. You completely ignored me. Do you realize how dishonest that is? I wouldn't mind if at least once someone besides TrueCreation (nice guy) actually answered the opposition. Again, evolution does not equal complexity! It equals advantage in the here and now.

“If evolution happened, then widespread death occurred before man evolved. But if death came before man and death was not a result of Adam’s sin, then sin does not exist. If sin does not exist, then we have no need for a savior.”

Naturally, if we have no need for a savior, there is no logical reason for a god [sic]. Equally, if there is no God, evolution works fine. It all equates to one thing, no God, no creation. In this case, science is whatever it wants to be and you can throw out the Bible and the beads with last night’s TV dinner.

That is absolute ****. I'm a Catholic, and yet I accept evolution. What I do is I don't subscribe to your fallible interpretation of Genesis, I subscribe to the one that makes sense with what we can observe.

 

[rmills]

Bushido216 says,

I already showed you that evolution isn't a march towards complexity. Infact, I showed you speciation via the fruit fly experiments. You completely ignored me. Do you realize how dishonest that is?

I guess you refer to this statement...

Evolution isn't a march towards greater or lesser complexity, it just is. The D. melanogaster that were changed to bread and meat flies weren't any more or less complex.

So I say again, this is an example of microevolution. How does this equate to macroevolution? If the understandings of what I am saying is lost with the difference in definition between macro and micro, then I understand why I frustrate you.

lucaspa,

I am not totally familiar with what you do, but to make blanket statements that provides observed fact of evolution because you or someone else performs genetic manipulation in a controlled environment proves nothing but the fact that you perform genetic manipulation in a controlled environment. I have no doubt that you can, nor do I have any doubt that some day we will have grown spare parts for folks with mutations or degenerative diseases that you can quite literally purchase like a replacement processor for your motherboard. This DOES NOT prove macroevolution! When did the premise, “You can build a house but a house cannot build itself.” suddenly disappear? Call it “strawman” if you wish.

As for the statement, “The Bible is a terrible science book.” I have no idea what to say other than go back and read it again, maybe from a different perspective than you have. Start with the plane that God is described to be in. We call light a certain speed, but math shows us that “the speed of light” is a contradiction in terms, especially depending on variables such as gravity, speed of actual observing perspective, ect. Light knows no speed, but we do so we try to explain it in terms that we can understand to somehow fit God into observable terms. Light is not speed, light is event, and that event is infinite which is a concept that we cannot grasp due to our inability to be infinite until we are with God. If the start and the finish of our time exist in God’s plane as an event, then we know through math that the start travels the opposite direction of the finish on that plane. Thus, we have an intersection in time and throughout time that proves the Biblical statement “there is nothing new under the sun.” This would confirm the statement that God is omnipresent. This would also shatter the belief that God grew life through evolutionary precepts. Evolution requires time, yet God does not exist in the construct of time. We cannot and will not explain how God created other than using the Biblical definition, which is quite clear. Example of Job calling out to God, he states that he believes that God does not hear his cries, but Michael the angel explains that he was fighting the prince of Persia for a period of time. This would indicate that Michael the angel has the ability to move between event (light) and time based constructs. Again, Paul speaks of a vision in 2 Corinthians that transcends time, in life but out of life that we comprehend, and in that vision was seen things that cannot be spoken in terms used by or understood by man. There is implication in these writings that are beyond our science, beyond what we can fathom because we do not exist on that plane. John the revelator saw things that he could not explain because he saw from the perspective that existed out of the construct of time.

What does all this attempt to explain, you don’t know what you are doing any better than I do, and the belief that we can explain God in terms known by science is laughable. The belief is the same fallacy when applied to how God created life. There is no question that you can do what you can do, but it will not explain God. God is. We cannot comprehend that because we have no frame of reference. Why is there faith? Why do we as Christians require it? So what you do is not the problem, nor is what you will do, but rather the problem exists in the fundamental misconception that God and his abilities in any respect are somehow an attainable future. This is why Revelation is so critical in this age, as is the word of God. We ask God for a script, we beg God for answers, we don’t realize that he gave us one. Without God we do not obtain the means to travel from time to light. Without God, we do not have the means to explain him or his constructs that he provided for us.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

rmills,

As for the statement, “The Bible is a terrible science book.” I have no idea what to say other than go back and read it again, maybe from a different perspective than you have. Start with the plane that God is described to be in. We call light a certain speed, but math shows us that “the speed of light” is a contradiction in terms, especially depending on variables such as gravity, speed of actual observing perspective, ect. Light knows no speed, but we do so we try to explain it in terms that we can understand to somehow fit God into observable terms. Light is not speed, light is event, and that event is infinite which is a concept that we cannot grasp due to our inability to be infinite until we are with God. If the start and the finish of our time exist in God’s plane as an event, then we know through math that the start travels the opposite direction of the finish on that plane. Thus, we have an intersection in time and throughout time that proves the Biblical statement “there is nothing new under the sun.” This would confirm the statement that God is omnipresent. This would also shatter the belief that God grew life through evolutionary precepts. Evolution requires time, yet God does not exist in the construct of time. We cannot and will not explain how God created other than using the Biblical definition, which is quite clear. Example of Job calling out to God, he states that he believes that God does not hear his cries, but Michael the angel explains that he was fighting the prince of Persia for a period of time. This would indicate that Michael the angel has the ability to move between event (light) and time based constructs. Again, Paul speaks of a vision in 2 Corinthians that transcends time, in life but out of life that we comprehend, and in that vision was seen things that cannot be spoken in terms used by or understood by man. There is implication in these writings that are beyond our science, beyond what we can fathom because we do not exist on that plane. John the revelator saw things that he could not explain because he saw from the perspective that existed out of the construct of time.

This quote of yours is garbage from a physics standpoint. Please learn some special relativity.

 

[Bushido216]

rmills, I already defined speciation as the new-found inability for two populations to inter-breed. i.e., two populations that could, no longer can. When they did the experiments with D. melanogaster, they could no longer breed after five years. During that five-year period, however, the three populations they had could interbreed, however, their D.N.A. codes were slowly marching apart (micro-evolution), when they could no longer interbreed (macro-evolution) they were speciated.

 

[lucaspa]

we can explain God in terms known by science is laughable.

We are not explaining God. We are discovering how God created. That's very different.

The belief is the same fallacy when applied to how God created life. There is no question that you can do what you can do, but it will not explain God. God is.

I'm not explaining God. However, I can explain how God created life. Thru chemistry:
http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/
http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html

Rmills, I think you have somehow made a very wrong turn in the discussion and have missed the point entirely. Let's try to get you back. We are simply reading God's Book of Creation to find out how He created. That's all. In the process, we can find some indication of what God is like or not like. We also find out whether our interpretation of the Bible is correct or incorrect.

the problem exists in the fundamental misconception that God and his abilities in any respect are somehow an attainable future.

We are not trying to attain God's abilities. We are just seeing what we can do and understand. Now, if it turns out that humans can do some things that you thought only God can do, that is your problem. That doesn't mean we are God or are going to be God. It just means that you made a mistake in what you thought only God could do.

This is why Revelation is so critical in this age, as is the word of God. We ask God for a script, we beg God for answers, we don’t realize that he gave us one.

God gave us two scripts. Not one. Two. The one you are referring to is the Bible. The second is Creation. The Bible tells us the who and why of creation. It also tells us how God wants us to relate to Him and to each other. The second script tells us how God created. What you are doing is ignoring the second script and trying to get the Bible to do something it is not supposed to do.

Now, let's get to some of the science in your post.


[quoteI guess you refer to this statement...

Evolution isn't a march towards greater or lesser complexity, it just is. The D. melanogaster that were changed to bread and meat flies weren't any more or less complex.

So I say again, this is an example of microevolution. How does this equate to macroevolution?[/quote]
It's macroevolution. Because you now have separate gene pools. New species. Remember, species is all there is.

By having a new species, each species -- the original species and the new ones -- are able to continue to diverge along separate paths. That is, new changes acquired by the original species are not going to be in the daughter species because they no longer exchange genes. What you call macroevolution is simply an accumulation of microevolution and many speciations.

I am not totally familiar with what you do, but to make blanket statements that provides observed fact of evolution because you or someone else performs genetic manipulation in a controlled environment proves nothing but the fact that you perform genetic manipulation in a controlled environment.

I did not give you any examples of "genetic manipulation". I gave you examples of what happens when populations are placed in different environments. I do know what genetic manipulation is. I work with mice that have been genetically manipulated so that they have bacterial genes in their genome. Humans directly inserted the genes. This isn't what happened in the cases I gave you. Variations between individuals happen by a number of different mechanisms. Selection picks among these variations for the designs that work best in that particular environment. Over time, the genetic composition of the population changes so that, after several generations, the genomes are not the same as the genomes that started.

When did the premise, “You can build a house but a house cannot build itself.” suddenly disappear?

When natural selection was discovered. That's when the Argument from Design (your house analogy) went out the window. Natural selection is an unintelligent process that can build a house or any other design.

As for the statement, “The Bible is a terrible science book.” I have no idea what to say other than go back and read it again, maybe from a different perspective than you have. Start with the plane that God is described to be in.

Which verses are these?

We call light a certain speed, but math shows us that “the speed of light” is a contradiction in terms, especially depending on variables such as gravity, speed of actual observing perspective, ect.

Sorry, but no. The speed of light in a vacuum is the same no matter the gravitational field or our frame of reference. That is the basis of Special and General Relativity.

Light knows no speed, but we do so we try to explain it in terms that we can understand to somehow fit God into observable terms. Light is not speed, light is event, and that event is infinite which is a concept that we cannot grasp due to our inability to be infinite until we are with God.

Light is an "event"? Light has a speed, but no one ever said light is a speed. No wonder you have problems with "science". What you have is not science.

If the start and the finish of our time exist in God’s plane as an event, then we know through math that the start travels the opposite direction of the finish on that plane.

Where do we know this? References, please.

Thus, we have an intersection in time and throughout time that proves the Biblical statement “there is nothing new under the sun.” This would confirm the statement that God is omnipresent.

Sorry, but there are new things "under the sun". For instance, Joyce and colleagues had natural selection make a DNA enzyme. This is NOT present in nature.
20. Breaker RR, Joyce GF.A DNA enzyme that cleaves RNA. Chem Biol 1994 Dec;1(4):223-9
21. Ronald R Breaker, Gerald FA Joyce DNA enzyme with Mg2+-dependent RNA phosphoesterase activity Chemistry & Biology 1995, 2:655-660.

Never seen before. Brand new.

Also, physics shows that God is not omnipresent. This is done by the Schroedinger's Cat experiments. Schroedinger did a thought experiment in quantum mechanics in which the macro world was linked to the micro world of QM. The cat would be both dead and alive at the same time. As soon as it was observed, it would be one or the other. Well, scientists have constructed a couple of "cats" to test this. And yes, the "cats" are both dead and alive. If God were omnipresent, He would be observing them and they would be one or the other. Ergo, God is not omnipresent.

5. G Taubes, Atomic mouse probes the lifetime of a quantum cat. Science, 274 (6 Dec): 1615, 1996.
6. P Yam, Bringing Schrodinger's cat to life. Scientific American, June, 1997, pp. 124-129. Summary of recent experiments of superposition (coherence) and dechoherence.
7. GP Collins, Schrodinger's SQUID. Scientific American 283: 23-24, October 2000. Electric current flows both ways around a superconducting loop at the same time.

This would also shatter the belief that God grew life through evolutionary precepts. Evolution requires time, yet God does not exist in the construct of time.

This does not follow. As you said, we do. So the material processes in the universe that God uses work in time. By this logic, God had to create Israel instantaneously because He does not exist in time. Yet we know that the Exodus and conquest of Palestine -- the creation of Israel -- took over 40 years.

We cannot and will not explain how God created other than using the Biblical definition, which is quite clear.

Which definition? In Genesis 1 God speaks entities into existence. Animals and humans are formed instantaneously by the "let there be" of God. But in Genesis 2 God forms Adam and animals from the dust. Kind of like a supernatural potter.

It doesn't matter. Creationism has God making entities -- earth, stars, moon, animals, plants, people -- instantaneously in their present form. Yes, creationists don't know how He did the "instantaneously in present form" but that is not necessary. Because we know the "instantaneously in present form" is wrong.

Example of Job calling out to God, he states that he believes that God does not hear his cries, but Michael the angel explains that he was fighting the prince of Persia for a period of time. This would indicate that Michael the angel has the ability to move between event (light) and time based constructs.

That indicates that Michael is limited to movement in the material universe, which makes his maximum speed the speed of light in a vacuum. It says nothing about God.

Again, Paul speaks of a vision in 2 Corinthians that transcends time, in life but out of life that we comprehend, and in that vision was seen things that cannot be spoken in terms used by or understood by man.

So? Anyone of us can mentally image events that happened in the past and events that have not happened and may never have happened. What do you think books, theater, art, and movies are about? Our "visions" put into material form. No different than what you ascribe to Paul. The question is whether Paul's vision was given by God and therefore is an accurate representation of some form of reality.

There is implication in these writings that are beyond our science,

I don't see any implications that would let us determine if they are beyond what we know thru science. It's pretty vague. Mostly the verses are Paul trying to avoid boasting that he was given this vision. He doesn't give any particulars about it.


We cannot comprehend that because we have no frame of reference. Why is there faith? Why do we as Christians require it? So what you do is not the problem, nor is what you will do, but rather the problem exists in the fundamental misconception that God and his abilities in any respect are somehow an attainable future. Without God we do not obtain the means to travel from time to light. Without God, we do not have the means to explain him or his constructs that he provided for us.[/QUOTE]