• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

DNA preserves the integrity of its program

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by pshun2404, Aug 15, 2017.

  1. pshun2404

    pshun2404 Newbie

    +549
    Non-Denom
    Married
    It is not and not of lesser value either.
     
  2. pshun2404

    pshun2404 Newbie

    +549
    Non-Denom
    Married
    a) I NEVER asked how inheritance works or about different type of mutations (more twist).
    b) I see now that you do not believe that nature "selects" (hence natural selection plays no role in this)

    Great!

    Another biologist (aka Milk Drops) on another forum gave the opinion that natural selection was responsible for this and I could not find support in scientific literature. However I also could not find anything on how this remaining vs not remaining works except the opinion (to summarize) by accident...just happy little accidents which then negatively, neutrally and more rarely positively affect the recipient organism.
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2017
  3. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    +3,745
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    It is of lesser value when it seems to rest entirely on your mere desire for them not to be transitional.
     
  4. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    +3,745
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    Twist?
    Perhaps if you could ask more pointed questions and stop beating around the bush...

    Natural selection plays no role in which mutations persist within one generation (unless it is a lethal mutation).

    That is, if a mutation occurs during meiosis and an offspring inherits the non-lethal mutation, then no, natural selection has not played a role as there has been no chance for the phenotype to interact with the environment.

    Natsel could play a role in whether or not that mutation-bearing offspring survives, or survives for long enough to produce its own offspring.


    Great!
     
  5. pshun2404

    pshun2404 Newbie

    +549
    Non-Denom
    Married
    I expressed no such desire (more twist), but if it were, why would that make it of lesser value (i understand you response to this will be YOUR opinion so please feel free)? I do not care if they are or are not "transitional" whatever that means for you.

    If one day they prove to be "transitional" (?) so be it. If one day they are proved to NOT be "transitional" (?) so be it. But let's start this diversion with what YOU mean when you say "transitional"....
     
  6. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    +3,745
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    No twist at all. That is my impression based on your posting history and the fact that you provided no actual rationale. Just a say-so.


    Already explained. It should be obvious - all opinions are not of equal value.

    Opinions that are premised on desires (not evidence) have no weight to them, they can be dismissed.

    Let's not - for that leads down the rabbit hole of Creationist Pedantery and Semantics. How about you provide a legitimate, evidence-backed rationale for claiming that the skulls presented do not represent transitionals.
     
  7. pshun2404

    pshun2404 Newbie

    +549
    Non-Denom
    Married
    deleted
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2017
  8. pshun2404

    pshun2404 Newbie

    +549
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Opinions that are premised on desires (not evidence) have no weight to them, they can be dismissed.

    If true, then there goes about half of what scientists say...right down the drain.

    How about you provide a legitimate, evidence-backed rationale for claiming that the skulls presented do not represent transitionals.

    Though a negative cannot be proven, as for an evidence-backed rationale, the skull presentation provided were skulls and fragments of skulls reconstructed ARE from various locations, ARE from differing time periods (not in a chronological order), and some ARE clearly human and others clearly ape (admittedly some could be either). So why should I believe they describe transitionals?

    Now IF transitionals means two different things that have homological similarities then yes (Pterodactyls and Bats both have wings) they can be said to be "transitionals" (a later redefinition to make the hypothesis appear correct by which staunch evolutionists can equivocate) BUT

    If by transitionals you are implying in-between states (the actual definition of the term) where one lineally led to the other than a MAYBE or COULD BE will have to suffice (and we can agree to disagree).
     
  9. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    +3,745
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    Last one for today...
    Examples please.

    And your sources for these accusations?

    What is it that YOU believe constitutes a transitional?

    I like the fragment dig - you know, if you know what you are looking at (as a paleoanthropologist would), a lot of information can be gleaned from fragments.

    Wow.
    A strawman followed by an insulting accusation - I'm shocked.
    I am not sure that that is what the term means. I know that creationists like to play games with definitions to suit their needs. Unless you can show us where a paleoanthropologist has stated as a conclusion (as opposed to speculation) that the possessor of one fossil skull gave rise to the next?
     
  10. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    +3,745
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    And he never did.. Just started a new thread. Seems like... a trend...
     
  11. pshun2404

    pshun2404 Newbie

    +549
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Opinions that are premised on desires (not evidence) have no weight to them, they can be dismissed.

    If true, then there goes about half of what scientists say...right down the drain.


    Examples please.

    That the moon splintered off from the earth

    That over time fish became amphibians (or amphibians into reptiles)

    That the small ape fossils in the Olduvai Gorge represented the creature who made and used the early stone tools

    For a few....

    What is it that YOU believe constitutes a transitional?

    In my words, an in-between state or creature that constitutes one becoming the other...

    I like the fragment dig - you know, if you know what you are looking at (as a paleoanthropologist would), a lot of information can be gleaned from fragments.


    "fragment dig" was that a pun? Yes it can...while a lot of important information can be and has been gleaned sometimes assumptions have been made though history. Not limiting this to ONLY paleoanthropologists and since I know you will demand examples rather than just admitting the truth, I will offer...Dubois’ Java man, some of the early the Heidelbergensis examples, and Leaky’s “early human ancestor” in Time Magazine....(which brainwashed millions)
     
  12. PsychoSarah

    PsychoSarah Chaotic Neutral

    +2,555
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    That's not a matter of opinion, the chemical composition of the moon is extremely similar to that of our planet. Plus, the moon we have is far too large to have been pulled in as a foreign object into orbit; in fact, it's very slowly escaping orbit.

    A conclusion derived from fossil observations and genetic similarity. It's not simply an opinion.

    You'd need to actually name the species you are referencing here, since more than one you could be possibly referencing has been discovered there. Given that all modern apes do use tools, as well as quite a few other organisms (many primates, some birds, dolphins, etc.), it's not really a huge jump to conclude that tools found in the same rock layer and near the bodies of some ancient apes were probably made by them.



    I've heard creationists say that before, and I show them Tiktaalik, and they say "oh no, that's not becoming something new, it's a complete creature". I have no idea why some people think an organism that is transitioning into another wouldn't be "complete", they have to survive and reproduce over many generations people, and all the body parts evolve together, so it wouldn't even make sense for an organism to be from the waist down reptile and from the waist up amphibian.



    -_- that's one of many Homo erectus fossils. Gotta watch out for that; since that species lived in so many places and had a lot of variety in terms of height and certain facial features, a lot of times fossils found in specific reasons get nicknames like that to help differentiate them from fossils of the same species found in other places.


    -_- maybe you could call the half of the lower jaw discovered in 1907 a "fragment", though that would be a stretch. Most of the fossils related to this species seem to be surprisingly complete skulls. There are a few teeth discoveries, but they happened well after skulls were discovered.

    Oh, you mean Lucy, which remains remarkably complete and is not "just fragments"?
     
  13. pshun2404

    pshun2404 Newbie

    +549
    Non-Denom
    Married
    There is so much wrong about your response Sarah it would take a small book to answer but I will address a few points but only to show the confusion some make between actual data and speculation based on the data. Next post....
     
  14. pshun2404

    pshun2404 Newbie

    +549
    Non-Denom
    Married

    That the moon splintered off from the earth

    That's not a matter of opinion, the chemical composition of the moon is extremely similar to that of our planet. Plus, the moon we have is far too large to have been pulled in as a foreign object into orbit; in fact, it's very slowly escaping orbit.

    It Is an opinion because they do not KNOW. Because it is believed and taught does not make it true. There is no evidence on the earth a segment of such magnitude was ever broken off (even by a huge Astroid or Meteor) and flung only so far into space. Had the moon not always been there (causing a gyroscope effect) we would have been pulled closer to the Sun and life would never have happened. That perfectly reasonable explanation is also totally speculative, the only difference is that I have no problem admitting it.

    The statement Tas made was “Opinions that are premised on desires (NOT EVIDENCE) have no weight to them, they can be dismissed.” So having no evidence of the assumption based conclusion renders it dismessable (though I still place it in the “considerable” category, by HIS definition it must be dismissed)

    That over time fish became amphibians (or amphibians into reptiles)

    A conclusion derived from fossil observations and genetic similarity. It's not simply an opinion.

    Again it IS an opinion! There are ZERO fossil examples of fibians or amphibish anywhere. No line of fossil finds demonstrating fish BECOMING amphibians. All living things share DNA in common but one can interpret this as merely similarity because we all living things on earth share similarity at this level, all being composed of three base sequences (in various possible configurations) of a four letter coding system. This is the structural basis of forms that live. The conclusion that this implies lineage is

    a) a premise based on a presupposition (hence the desire) that the hypothesis is true (or obvious according to some)

    b) the hypothesis being believed and accepted as truth before any such so-called evidence was produced influences the interpretation to fit the theoretical premise

    That the small ape fossils in the Olduvai Gorge represented the creature who made and used the early stone tools

    You'd need to actually name the species you are referencing here, since more than one you could be possibly referencing has been discovered there. Given that all modern apes do use tools, as well as quite a few other organisms (many primates, some birds, dolphins, etc.), it's not really a huge jump to conclude that tools found in the same rock layer and near the bodies of some ancient apes were probably made by them.

    Zinjanthropus boisei was found by Mary Leaky around 750 feet away from (and 50 feet down) from the remains of some early stone tools that had footprints leafing away from them. The sparse Zinj fossils were unquestionably australopithicene (small cranial size and all).

    But since it was already the accepted conclusion that no humans existed at the time (about 1.5 to 1.8 mya) they concluded that the australopithicene family must have made and used the tools and the footprints. The two sets of tracks however show no telltale signs of a separated big toe/thumb...

    If one were not already “convinced” of the conclusion (their opinion being shaped) one could interpret the evidence as unrelated...a human site, and almost a football field away the remains of a dead ape.

    Apes do not make stone tools (even now after millions of years). They may use stones as tools and sharpen sticks to get at gnats and so on but that is magnitudes different. Yes some apes NOW use tools, perhaps their puny intellects are finally developing, and maybe some always did (though we have no evidence) but the case I am referring to is when 750 feet (almost a football field away) from stone tools (the tools found near the Laetoli footprints) the Leakys found the upper remains of a young female ape. Their conclusion (based on the preconcluded assumption that there were no humans in that time period AND eager for funding) that this implied that this young ape or her family made the tools and used them.

    This would be like if a million years from now (after our civilization perishes) someone finding the remains of a toilet a football field away from the upper remains of a bear or dog and concluding the bears or dogs made and used the toilet. It was an assumption based conclusion because for all we know very early humans may have eaten the ape for dinner before walking off.

    In my words, an in-between state or creature that constitutes one becoming the other...

    I've heard creationists say that before, and I show them Tiktaalik, and they say "oh no, that's not becoming something new, it's a complete creature". I have no idea why some people think an organism that is transitioning into another wouldn't be "complete", they have to survive and reproduce over many generations people, and all the body parts evolve together, so it wouldn't even make sense for an organism to be from the waist down reptile and from the waist up amphibian.

    So sad you have been fooled! Have you ever seen what we actually found for the fossil? You could not possibly conclude as you have done, with any sense of assurance if you had. What we found was only mostly the head of the creature and some of the top of the body, and IT was quite flattened and splintered.

    "fragment dig" was that a pun? Yes it can...while a lot of important information can be and has been gleaned sometimes assumptions have been made though history. Not limiting this to ONLY paleoanthropologists and since I know you will demand examples rather than just admitting the truth, I will offer...Dubois’ Java man

    -_- that's one of many Homo erectus fossils. Gotta watch out for that; since that species lived in so many places and had a lot of variety in terms of height and certain facial features, a lot of times fossils found in specific reasons get nicknames like that to help differentiate them from fossils of the same species found in other places.

    A German team sent to Java to investigate, shortly thereafter, unearthed thousands of cubic meters of material, sending crates of fossils back to Germany, Dubois himself refused cooperation with the expedition, and refused to let them examine the actual bones he had found. No evidence of Dubois’ Java man could be found! Dr. Carthaus, a geologist on the expedition, after only finding ape remains (mostly like gibbons or orangutan) mixed among possibly human remains, concluded that Dubois’ Java man did not exist. (See Nature, volume 87, page 50).

    Later Professor Emil Selenka’s team investigating the stone marked site of Dubois as well as the surrounding area, dug down an additional 35 feet and also failed to find even one more example. Why? Well later when scientists themselves rebuked his claim (though sadly still in some texts) they found he combined two unrelated fossil fragments and failed to report the two human like skulls (the Wadjak skulls) he had found at the same site (and had hid for 30 years from the scientific community).

    The skull cap and molars (totally ape) were found on one occasion, and then later, about 50 feet away (still in level D however), they found the femur (equal to any human though slightly thicker) and instead of seeing it as possible evidence of early HUMANS existing at the same time as this other creature (which would be against the conclusion that would get funded) they fit the two unrelated finds into the theory (typical of bad science), and so erroneously insisted they belonged to the same creature and presented it as proof of an ape-like creature that was upright and bi-pedal like a human (remember poor Ota Benga). Then Ralph von Koenigswald (a Paleontologist) found a definitely human skull cap from the same time period as Dubois’ Java man in the same area (but these truths do not make it into the textbooks for open minded consideration). The Mojokerto child skull cap (found by von Koenigswald later still) was also clearly human (he named it Pithecanthropus modjokertensis), but Dubois (the pedagoguery’s current hero at the time) protested that Pithecanthropus was not a human but an "ape-man" (do you see how the theory was used to interpret the data? Come on now….you know that is bad science)….see Theunissen, Bert (Jan 1, 1989), Eugène Dubois and the Ape-Man from Java: The History of the First `Missing Link' and Its Discoverer,(Springer Science & Business Media. pp. 161–162).

    , some of the early the Heidelbergensis examples

    -_- maybe you could call the half of the lower jaw discovered in 1907 a "fragment", though that would be a stretch. Most of the fossils related to this species seem to be surprisingly complete skulls. There are a few teeth discoveries, but they happened well after skulls were discovered.

    Yes possibly just a variety of Erectus but the re-naming and conclusion was made and accepted before these others were found which were then placed in this category. He was first named after a contrived combination of various bones from different countries (a mock creature that one cannot possibly know actually existed)...other skulls found from similar geological layers HAVE been so classified (now some from Africa).

    How about Richard Leaky's "The First Europeans", National Geographic, July 1997, page 108, which is a really imaginatively contrived composite (totally imagined, and I believe engineered to shape public opinion) based on the Boxgrove find (a few bones), the Heidelberg jaw (which may be Erectus or Ape due to the simian ridge), and a needed, sent for, and purchased, Bodo Ethiopian skull. Sounds a bit like Frankenstein...

    , and Leaky’s “early human ancestor” in Time Magazine....(which brainwashed millions)

    Oh, you mean Lucy, which remains remarkably complete and is not "just fragments"?

    Nope not Lucy...you remember the half-naked African guy with the huge artistically derived mask on the cover? No? Oh ho....that’s hilarious propaganda...you have to see it for yourself...had so many talking for years and it was shown in schools as proof (that is where I first saw it). And why is the most primitive always a black man and the allegedly most “evolved” always a white man? Go figure (remember poor Ota)...Time Magazine, “How Man became Man” (Leaky 1977)
     
  15. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    +3,745
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    Sarah already dealt with these, but just to add a bit.

    So, you just label things that you, for non-scientific reasons, don't want to accept as 'opinions based on desires.'

    How clever.

    But I find it fantastic, once again, that someone that relies on claims of 3 decades of 'study' and the like puts forth an implication that 'That over time fish became amphibians' is just a desire-based opinion.'

    'In-between' - sort of like Tiktaalik? Or Archaeopteryx? Or are you more like 'crocoduck'?

    So... You count mistakes and the like as "assumptions"?

    Speaking of 'brainwashing millions...' - I give you

    Sunday School.

    Vacation Bible School.

    Televangelists.

    The Discovery Institute.

    etc.
     
  16. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    +3,745
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    Ah, so conclusions drawn from chemical analyses and such are just opinions in the world of the amazing autodidact, who never offers anything BUT opinions...

    Most ironic.

    And the fossils of the created Amphibian Kind is... where?


    3 decades of 'study' of evolution and this is the GARBAGE that you put out to defend your failed dogma?


    You appear to be 100% clueless (or very dishonest - hard to tell at this point) as to what molecular analyses actually examine - DESPITE the fact that it is very very easy to find out just what these methods analyze - I believe I have explained it to you more than once.

    The fact that you mention"similarities" proves that you do not understand the methods or know about any of the data used to reconstruct phylogenetic trees.

    Here is a hint - similarities are certainly informative, but it is the patterns or shared, unique characters that are indicative of descent. And this has, in fact, based on tested methods:

    Science 25 October 1991:
    Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

    Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

    WR Atchley and WM Fitch

    Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

    ======================

    Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

    Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

    DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
    Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

    Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

    ==================================

    Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

    Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

    DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
    Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

    Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.




    Please actually learn about such things before you foolishly dismiss them based on a rather naive and shallow "understanding" of what they encompass.
     
  17. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    +3,745
    United States
    Atheist
    Married

    No, you will reguripost your archived hackneyed dodges gleaned from any number of creationist websites and books.
     
  18. pshun2404

    pshun2404 Newbie

    +549
    Non-Denom
    Married
    So in other words nothing! No problem here!
     
  19. pshun2404

    pshun2404 Newbie

    +549
    Non-Denom
    Married
    "Ah, so conclusions drawn from chemical analyses and such are just opinions in the world of the amazing autodidact, who never offers anything BUT opinions..."

    Many planets and moons in the universe probably have similar elements...the truth of the similarity in chemical make up is not opinion, that is a fact we can observe and test... I NEVER said that was an opinion...

    Your early mice to later mice and early bacteria to later bacteria were great examples of exactly what I said thanks....
     
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2017
  20. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    +3,745
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    Nothing what?

    You claims were nothing, that much is true. I am in the process of finding where you paraphrased them from.
     
Loading...