Evolution/Creation on Trial

[Loudmouth]

If someone speak in a code , that is a language, that I don't understand then it will only sound like noise ... It may as well be "Junk sound". In order for someone to know the information in a code they have to know the language of that code. The genetic code is not in English so it's going to many years of hard work for man to crack the many codes in the DNA.
Spies tries to hide code while other spies tries to find the hidden code that the average person would see as junk or noise.

The simplest bacteria appear have been built by someone that is a million times smarter than man so it going to take a very long time for man to crack the genetic code.

We have many ID/creationists here claiming that DNA has information that only a designer could produce, yet when faced with a simple 100 base DNA sequence they can't do anything with it. Seems that all ID/creationists have are empty assertions.

 

[paulm50]

The whale for one.

Can you show how this applies, your statement was confusing, backing it up by saying whales, isn't helpful. Please provide illustrations of how Whales fit your formula.

False. The Genesis Narrative even states that life forms (kinds) came before the Kinds being presented in the Narrative.

Proof please. Copy and paste it from the original machine translated version.

The proof is in all those things that materialists like to claim are illusions.

The proof is an illusion. OK I understand now.

 

[Loudmouth]

Let's test that theory with the evolutionists.

http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/basics/dna
"The information in DNA is stored as a code made up of four chemical bases: adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C), and thymine (T). Human DNA consists of about 3 billion bases, and more than 99 percent of those bases are the same in all people. The order, or sequence, of these bases determines the information available for building and maintaining an organism, similar to the way in which letters of the alphabet appear in a certain order to form words and sentences."

All of which are analogies.

Do you think that if I took out all of the DNA from a cell nucleus and put that DNA into a test tube of saline all by itself that a cell would be formed? If I even included a few lipids, phosphates, nitrates, and amino acids, would you see a cell form in front of your eyes? Does DNA tell a protein how to fold, or which ligand to bind to?

 

[Loudmouth]

Many who call themselves Christians don't believe the bible. How they can claim to believe God and think he's a liar is beyond me.

Do you believe the Creation? Would God put fake evidence in the Creation just to fool us?

Wouldn't that kind of defeat the purpose of common design? Everything was designed to fill a notch in a single ecosystem; earth.

Why would that require a nested hierarchy?

 

[Loudmouth]

Here is why evolutionist are afraid of the results produce by ENCODE.
Here is a quote from Dan Graur:
"If the human genome is indeed devoid of junk DNA as implied by the ENCODE project, then a long,undirected evolutionary process cannot explain the human genome. If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, then all DNA, or as much as possible, is expected to exhibit function. If ENCODE is right, then Evolution is wrong."

The best evidence against evolution comes from evolutionist.

Where did ENCODE demonstrate that a majority of the human genome has function which impacts human fitness? Evolution has no problem explaining why leaky RNA transcriptase activity can produce low copy RNA transcripts from junk DNA.

 

[Oncedeceived]

As usual, when a creationist quotes someone, the best solution is to check the source.


The "problem" usually resolves itself. Graur may be right that the 2012 results of ENCODE would be a problem for evolution. It almost certainly would be a problem for much of our understanding of genetics. 80% functional genome? That's an insanely high number, completely out of line with all of the rest of nature and with much of what we understand in genetics. Of course, the problem here is that Graur's presentation, where he made that quote, is tearing down ENCODE. He (like a great many other scientists) thinks that ENCODE's 2012 result is a load of crap. From a mere five slides later (slide 21) in the presentation:

How did ENCODE reach the conclusion that 80% of the human genome is functional, when the evidence for selection constraint is ~5%?

•  Equating hype with science.  
  
• Wrong experimental systems.  
• Inappropriate statistical analyses.
  
• A peculiar definition of function. 
  
• A peculiar definition of junk.  
  
• A lack of evolutionary perspective.  
  
• A lack of objectivity about the study organism.  
  
• Ignorance of everything that came before ENCODE.

In fact, in slide 126, he goes so far as to say that it is impossible that ENCODE's results are accurate due to effective population sizes.

Grauer's statements are not particularly impressive given how widely ENCODE 2012 has been criticized. You should watch the whole presentation, rather than just taking individual snippets from it that seem to support your view. You might learn something.




...And then not a single cite actually refutes my argument (because it can't, because it's a very basic principle of information theory). I don't think you understood what I was saying.

ENCODE did use a "different" definition for function.
Another thing ENCODE did was go in without an a priori evolutionary mindset. They went into it with no preconceived evolutionary concepts. Thus, the reason for many Scientists to dismiss what they had to present. The biggest problem with ENCODE (scientists worked very hard on this project) was that they were part of a circus designed to garner great interest in BiG Science. The projects that take great amounts of money in hopes that it will be used in smaller projects that all in all are much more expensive to fund and yield smaller returns. Its about the money. Unfortunately, those people that give money for scientific research will want to fund these broad efforts for numerous reasons and leave the smaller efforts without funding. The individual scientists in ENCODE were taking their science to a broad and varied audience, hoping to supply needed research for numerous endeavors in Science for those who don't have the equipment, money or scientists to get the information they need. The Media circus caused a great deal more controversy than should have occurred and it ultimately will hurt the small research arenas that garner great advances in Science.

 

[paulm50]

Many who call themselves Christians don't believe the bible. How they can claim to believe God and think he's a liar is beyond me.

We don't claim god is a liar. We claim priests and clergy can be liars, and in the case of Genesis and creation, were lying.

They simply didn't know anything but their part of the World, their oral stories passed down by mouth, and a little bit of writing. Which as far as the creation story had to be oral in the beginning. Which is wrong as the first people in the Middle East weren't farming.

Hebrew Bible.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Do you believe the Creation? Would God put fake evidence in the Creation just to fool us?

You just can't shake that faulty mentality that if evolution no God and if God no evolution.

Why would that require a nested hierarchy?

There is no valid reason that Creation would not create a nested hierarchy. Do you have one?

 

[Oncedeceived]

We don't claim god is a liar. We claim priests and clergy can be liars, and in the case of Genesis and creation, were lying. They simply didn't know anything but their part of the World, their oral stories passed down by mouth, and a little bit of writing. Which as far as the creation story had to be oral in the beginning. Which is wrong as the first people in the Middle East weren't farming.

Hebrew Bible.

Why is Genesis the only Narrative that puts forth a sequence of creation that can be supported in part by scientific findings?

 

[paulm50]

Why is Genesis the only Narrative that puts forth a sequence of creation that can be supported in part by scientific findings?

I'm sorry. I assumed as a Christian you would believe in the Genesis Approach of a god doing all this. Can you show me what you believe created the Earth and all the species here, please.

 

[paulm50]

That would require you to demonstrate that there has been a mistake. Where has anyone shown that these are not transitional fossils?

Where have you ever shown that they were produced by "breed mates"?

Scientists have now proven Humans mated with Neanderthals. We share their DNA.

As for the Human skulls, illustrates perfectly how we evolved. The Hominid family is relatively new, so we find more remains and less gaps occur. Like a lot of later species. The problem is with species that lived 100 million years ago.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The whale had at a bare minimum 55 million years to evolve from entirely land-based (hippo-like) mammals. No peer-reviewed science publication has ever made the case that this is somehow "not enough time" for this change to happen. I understand this is a common claim among the intelligent design community, but it is not backed up by any published science.

Actually it is not 55 million years which has always been considered the required amount of time according to materialists for this evolution to occur. However, you must be unfamiliar with the discovery of fossil evidence that drops that 55 million down to around 3 to 5 million years. Which sounds like a lot of time but considering the evolutionary models it is hardly a blink of an eye.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...tica-whales-oldest-evolution-animals-science/

Based on 53-million-year-old fossils of whale-like, semi-aquatic mammals, scientists had thought mammals gave rise to whales in a process that took 15 million years. The new find suggests it took just 4 million years. (See a prehistoric time line.)

 

[Oncedeceived]

I'm sorry. I assumed as a Christian you would believe in the Genesis Approach of a god doing all this. Can you show me what you believe created the Earth and all the species here, please.

As a Christian I believe the Christian God created the universe and all that exists.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The Jews compiled the OT while in Bondage in Babylon. Constantine was compiling the NT at a time of the old gods falling in popularity, the new Christian religion was very spilt and he needed to bring it together.

Research the History, then read on and see how both have been used as a political tool ever since. You do the research, only on History sites, and see why the need was there.

The compilers were all top priests, they need to retain power.

I said I wanted evidence. Please provide evidence that the OT and NT were political creations due to need.

 

[Loudmouth]

Scientists have now proven Humans mated with Neanderthals. We share their DNA.

They have also shown that cross-breeding was very limited, and mainly occurred in European populations. The numbers I have heard are 5-10% contribution to modern populations, mostly of European heritage.

As for the Human skulls, illustrates perfectly how we evolved. The Hominid family is relatively new, so we find more remains and less gaps occur. Like a lot of later species. The problem is with species that lived 100 million years ago.

I would also hazard a guess that there are a lot more people looking for hominid fossils.

 

[Loudmouth]

Why is Genesis the only Narrative that puts forth a sequence of creation that can be supported in part by scientific findings?

This again? Haven't I already shown you that the sequence is wrong?

 

[Loudmouth]

You just can't shake that faulty mentality that if evolution no God and if God no evolution.

Where did I make any such statement?

There is no valid reason that Creation would not create a nested hierarchy. Do you have one?

I have been saying from the start that there would be no reason why ID/creationism would necessarily produce a nested hierarchy. You haven't shown why a nested hierarchy is a prediction of ID/creationism.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Quite the opposite, I'm ready to accept a god and creation. If you can prove it with even a little bit of evidence, not by disproving parts of evolution.

There is evidence but that evidence is called illusion.
When one believes that evolution is the only process by which life could arise and change, is a belief based on evidence alone, then if one doesn't have the evidence one needs to prove it, this leads to disproving claims that people make about evolution. Its the way it is.

Maybe a god kicked it all off, maybe a god came back, or lived here and spent his time tweaking species that lived on Earth. One thing's for sure. It has nothing to do with the bible.
You believe we are going to find. When we do, the books will be re written.

God will come back but I don't think that will be a good thing for you unless something changes drastically.

As we are finding more proof of evolution, it's more than likely less will believe in Creation. So if a god didn't kick it off, didn't spend a billion years constantly updating the life on Earth. How is it that life on Earth keeps changing without evolution fitting nature?

Evolution doesn't mean no God and NO God doesn't mean no evolution. Hard one to get your mind around I guess?

Wrong. The jumps you propose is because of the scarcity of the older fossil. As we get to the last million years, the gaps are shorter, last 500,000 closer still.

Like I said, the whale is an example of what I was referring to.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Where did I make any such statement?

You imply it all the time.

I have been saying from the start that there would be no reason why ID/creationism would necessarily produce a nested hierarchy. You haven't shown why a nested hierarchy is a prediction of ID/creationism.

It was your claim, why wouldn't ID produce a nested hierarchy?

 

[Loudmouth]

There is evidence but that evidence is called illusion.

Can you show us the scientific methodology, unit of measure, and statistical tests for detecting design?

When one believes that evolution is the only process by which life could arise and change, is a belief based on evidence alone, then if one doesn't have the evidence one needs to prove it, this leads to disproving claims that people make about evolution. Its the way it is.

Evolutionary mechanisms are the only mechanisms we have evidence for. For some structures we will have to conclude that we just don't know how they came about. However, for the changes we do have evidence for the evidence is consistent with evolutionary mechanisms.

Unfortunately, you think a God of the Gaps argument is somehow valid, that not knowing how something evolved on a mutation by mutation level that this somehow evidences magic. Well, it doesn't.

Evolution doesn't mean no God and NO God doesn't mean no evolution. Hard one to get your mind around I guess?

Then why do you use a God of the Gaps argument?