Discussion on the how it all started

[Hans Blaster]

Lol, lots of evidence has been presented. But, there's some kind of stigma involved in acknowledging that we did not drag ourselves out of the primordial goop, apparently.

"Tour signed Discovery’s Dissent List on Darwinian theory years ago when the National Center for Science Education asserted that only a handful of scientists doubt Darwin’s theory. Our list of dissenters started at 100, then grew to 800. At that point we stopped inviting people to sign it because their names on the list were used by Darwinists to persecute them professionally. Some lost their jobs."

It's a dangerous thing for a biologist especially to publically question evolution theory.

yada yada yada

We've heard this before.

 

[Larniavc]

No, the fact they appear in nature shows that someone designed the natural world. Chance cannot create the computer in front of you and it certainly can't create the endless complexity found in this world.

I see you have not replied to my previous questions. Not a good look. One wonders why you bother. Even people in the cheap seats can see how you ignore the opportunities to discuss specific points about ToE that you have been offered.

Did you even read the paper I linked in answer to your questions about cell membranes and DNA (or RNA as is more likely)?

As a Christian do you think you are doing God's work in this thread? Do you think you are saving souls?

I'm done with you. There are more interesting things to do than debate with people who will not learn.

Good evening.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have it backward. If Darwinism is the dominant view, all one has to do it cast doubt on it being the only option possible from the evidence provided.

For example:

 Ola Hössjer, Ann Gauger, and Colin Reeves, “Genetic Modeling of Human History Part
1: Comparison of Common Descent and Unique Origin Approaches,” BIO-Complexity,
Vol. 2016 (3).
Did humans evolve from apelike creatures or were they intelligently designed?
According to the standard evolutionary view, humans share a common ancestor with
chimpanzees, and our lineage diverged about 6 million years ago in Africa and then
evolved by unguided evolutionary mechanisms into its present form. This paper
evaluates the assumptions underlying the standard evolutionary model of human
origins and finds “it is full of gaps and weaknesses.” Instead, the authors maintain that
“a unique origin model where humanity arose from one single couple with created
diversity seems to explain data at least as well, if not better.”


After reviewing five main mechanisms invoked by standard evolutionary models of
population genetics to explain human genetic diversity (mutation, genetic drift, natural
selection, recombination, and colonization and migration), the paper observes that:
Neo-Darwinism accounts for the above-mentioned mechanisms I–V, and among
them germline mutations are essentially the only way by which novel DNA can
arise. The theory does not allow for large amounts of new and suddenly
appearing diversity. The reason is that neo-Darwinism is framed within
methodological naturalism. This prevailing approach to science only allows for
natural hypotheses. But if an intelligent designer is invoked as a possible
explanation, and if humanity originates from one single couple, it is possible that
their chromosomes were created with considerable diversity from the beginning.
Thus, the authors report discovery of “a sixth mechanism of genetic change,” one which
is almost universally ignored by evolutionary models: “Created founder diversity is
biologically plausible for DNA of non-sex chromosomes.”
With these mechanisms in mind, the article compares standard evolutionary “common
ancestry” models of human origins with “unique origin” models, where an initial pair of
humans was created with significant founder diversity. There are two main common
ancestry models of human origins: the Out-of-Africa model, where humans evolved in
Africa and then migrated out one single time, and the Multiregional Evolution model,
where humans evolved in Africa but migrated out multiple times, with different human
populations around the world evolving in parallel. There are also two “unique origin”
models: An African Ancestry model, where the initial created pair was located in Africa,
and a Middle East ancestry model, where an initial couple was created in the Middle
East and then humans migrated around the world.
The authors note that the “main argument against a unique origin is that the nucleotide
diversity of human DNA data seems too high in order make a single founding couple
possible.” But they argue it is possible that humans are descended from an initial couple
if “they were created with genetic diversity in their autosomal and X-chromosome
DNA.” What about the location of the initial couple? Non-African populations of humans
seem more genetically similar compared to African humans, and they note that “the
Middle East ancestry model faces some challenges, in particular to explain why African
DNA looks older than non-African DNA.” However, a Middle East origin model could
explain the data if “the age of humanity is much more recent” than common ancestry
models predict, and if African populations experienced higher rates of genetic change
and lived in isolated communities where unique diversity was easily fixed into small
populations. They cite previous literature to support these ideas, making the Middle
East unique origin model a realistic possibility.
The authors conclude that “Any common descent model faces a challenge to explain the
genetic differences rather than the similarities with other species, the consequences of
inbreeding depression and increased genetic entropy, human DNA mixture with archaic
populations, and that our DNA resembles a mosaic of about four founder genomes.”
Thus, they find that “The provisional conclusion is that a unique origin model seems
more plausible.” But which unique origin model best explains the data? They urge
future research is needed to test the two unique origins models, which is what the
authors plan to do in subsequent papers. It may be that multiple models can explain the
data, in which case they conclude that “the common descent model of our origin from
ape-like ancestors can no longer be claimed as conclusive proof that there could not
have been a single first pair.”

What are you trying to prove there? That is not "Darwinism". Darwin's theory predates genetics. Now you are talking about the modern synthesis. And where is there a Gish Gallop that I gave. I did not even bring up that particular article. You appear to be very very confused.

And another Gish Gallop is you just admitting that you are wrong, again.

Try to find a piece of evidence that supports your claims please. Your last list was refuted. This list may be different, but it can be refuted just as easily. Glancing through it I saw the long dead "genetic entropy" argument. That was based upon "Haldane's dilemma" and Haldane himself found the error in his earlier work. Yet creationists ignored that.

Instead of endlessly failing with no effort on my part choose the best article that you can.

 

[renniks]

Scott T. Matuscak and Change Laura Tan, “Who are the parents of Mycoplasma
mycoides JCVI-syn1.0?,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2016 (2).
In 2010, the noted biotechnologist J. Craig Venter seemingly bolstered the idea that
blind mechanistic processes could create life when his team announced the creation of
“the first self-replicating species we’ve had on the planet whose parent is a computer.”
This peer-reviewed paper scrutinizes that research and finds that in actuality, the true
parents of the bacterium M. mycoides were previous bacteria of the same species, with
small amounts of input from yeast and E. coli, as well as the ingenuity of humans. After
analyzing the methods used in the research, they find that “the computer was only
used, passively, to store genome sequence information. It did not generate a single
molecule necessary for the survival or arrival of” the bacterial cells. According to their
analysis, the vast majority of the bacteria’s genome was based upon DNA from the
genomes of living bacteria. To be precise:
[T]he final complete genome, 98.55% of the genome sequence was based on the
natural M. mycoides genome sequence, 0.94% was the yeast cloning vector
sequence, and 0.08% came from bacterial insertions. The last 0.43% was
designed by humans in the form of watermarks, using a computer as a tool to
convert the letters, numbers, and punctuation into DNA sequences.
They further observe that “the human-engineered watermark sequences do not
produce any functional products within the cell, so even the small percentage of
sequences that were actually designed by humans using computers do not affect the
cell with respect to function (except perhaps as a burden to maintain those sequences.”)
Thus, they argue that “If one were to classify the parents of an organism on the basis of
the providers of the genetic sequence, then we should consider the parent of M.
mycoides JCVI-syn1.0 to be M. mycoides because it provides almost 99% of the genome
sequence.” They conclude that “regardless of which criteria one chooses to use in order
to define what constitutes the actual parent for the M. mycoides JCVI-syn1.0 cells, the
computer would be the least plausible candidate. It was just a place that was used by
humans to store the sequences in transit. The sequence on a computer will not give
birth to even a single DNA, RNA, or protein molecule of any cell.” In Venter’s research,
no blind mechanisms created any new species.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And in case the qualifications were forgotten the evidence was to come from well respected professional peer reviewed scientific journals. Bio-Complexity fails at that. It is an artificial open source (that basically means it is pay to publish, anyone can publish there if one pays the price) creationist source. Not well respected. Definitely not scientific. Probably not even properly peer reviewed.

BIO-Complexity - RationalWiki

From the article:

"Despite the intention to have one article per month, it took from May 2010 until December 2010 for another article to be published (by William Dembski, a member of the editorial team). Only one article was published in 2011, and three total are by Douglas Axe. For 2012, the Panda's Thumb blog points out:[7]

“”…the 2012 volume contains exactly two research articles, one “critical review” and one “critical focus”, for a grand total of four items. The editorial board has 30 members; they must be kept very busy handling all those papers.
Despite its lackluster performance, the journal proclaimed, "Over 2,000 PDFs downloaded… In its first two months, BIO-Complexity has attracted a large readership."[8] The journal was panned in a review by young earth creationist and baraminologist Todd C. Wood:[9]

“”In the larger scheme of things, I am sensing a discouraging pattern to BIO-Complexity publications. As I quoted above, the journal is supposed to be about "testing the scientific merit of the claim that intelligent design (ID) is a credible explanation for life," which is a great goal. But this is the fifth paper published by BIO-Complexity, and it's the fifth paper that focuses on perceived inadequacies of evolution. So when are we going to test "the scientific merit of the claim that intelligent design (ID) is a credible explanation for life?"
If a young earth creationist doesn't like it, who does?"

 

[HitchSlap]

Another condescending atheist. How boringly predictable.

It’s usually how these things go.

 

[disciple Clint]

Oh great, another philosopher abusing physics (in this case relativity) to create new "philosophy.

Why not read what he has to say and then decide if he has "abused" physics. If you are sufficiently informed to judge what is accurate in the world of physics use this link which is more appropriate for people who are knowledgeable in this field, it goes into much more technical detail. Feel free to be specific in any criticism you may have after reviewing his work. https://www.crediblecatholic.com/pdf/7E-P2/7E-BB1.pdf

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why not read what he has to say and then decide if he has "abused" physics. If you are sufficiently informed to judge what is accurate in the world of physics use this link which is more appropriate for people who are knowledgeable in this field, it goes into much more technical detail. Feel free to be specific in any criticism you may have after reviewing his work. https://www.crediblecatholic.com/pdf/7E-P2/7E-BB1.pdf

Actually it is your claim. It is up to you to pick what you think is his best argument. I looked though it and there was no credible evidence there.

 

[disciple Clint]

Actually it is your claim. It is up to you to pick what you think is his best argument. I looked though it and there was no credible evidence there.

I would be interested to hear your specific criticism of any of the points he makes. Note all of the footnotes, that is called evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I would be interested to hear your specific criticism of any of the points he makes. Note all of the footnotes, that is called evidence.

Then pick an argument.

And no, footnotes are not evidence. smh

 

[Godistruth1]

I did say. I do not believe that one kind of animal makes the genetic leap to another kind. I can observe adaptation, I can't observe a squirrel becoming a toad. It does not happen in the natural world, so why should I believe what I can't see?

Hey darwin did see that happening

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hey darwin did see that happening

What??

 

[renniks]

Hey darwin did see that happening

Darwin saw two different types of finches and somehow got the idea that this leads to finches becoming humans if enough time lapses and there are enough intermediates in between. Well, there are still different types of finches and different types of canines and felines, and so on, but there's no half canines, half felines.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Darwin saw two different types of finches and somehow got the idea that this leads to finches becoming humans if enough time lapses and there are enough intermediates in between. Well, there are still different types of finches and different types of canines and felines, and so on, but there's no half canines, half felines.

Really? That must have been in some edition of his that I missed.

Could you please quote and link where he said that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Double post.

 

[Godistruth1]

Darwin saw two different types of finches and somehow got the idea that this leads to finches becoming humans if enough time lapses and there are enough intermediates in between. Well, there are still different types of finches and different types of canines and felines, and so on, but there's no half canines, half felines.

But doesn't the idea count for something. I mean if darwin got the idea shouldn't it be enough for rest of the world to trust his thoughts? He didn't have to prove it. I can't believe why people still don't trust him.

 

[pitabread]

but there's no half canines, half felines.

Of course there aren't. Dogs didn't evolve into cats (or vise-versa). Thus we would never expect to see a half-dog/half-cat.

In fact finding examples of chimeras like that would be something a designer could do, and not something you'd expect of evolution.

So if life was designed, why don't we see any half-dogs/half-cats?

 

[Subduction Zone]

But doesn't the idea count for something. I mean if darwin got the idea shouldn't it be enough for rest of the world to trust his thoughts? He didn't have to prove it. I can't believe why people still don't trust him.

It has been "proven". Darwin himself found very strong evidence for it.
Why do you think that there is an doubt about evolution? We may not know its exact path but we do know that life is the product of it. You are effectively arguing for a Flat Earth.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I would be interested to hear your specific criticism of any of the points he makes. Note all of the footnotes, that is called evidence.

To be clear, I was commenting on YOUR description of the author, not the content of the document.

Your description made me think of the French post-modern literary critics and philosophers (I think that is the right group) that tried to use the "oddness" of modern physics (quantum mechanics, relativity) to generate "philosophy" and "social comment".

What a brief scan of the document revealed was rather a fairly common set of christian apologetics and "philosophy" (including "meta"physics) plus some gratuitous jabs at non-believers that I've all heard before.

 

[renniks]

But doesn't the idea count for something. I mean if darwin got the idea shouldn't it be enough for rest of the world to trust his thoughts? He didn't have to prove it. I can't believe why people still don't trust him.

Lots of false ideas in the world.
Darwin said:
https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/12793.Charles_Darwin
Man selects only for his own good: Nature only for that of the being which she tends.

Doesn't that sound like someone who is making nature a god? How can nature select? Is nature an actual woman with a mind? Of course not. Nature is prone to only chaos unless someone has designed order into it.