Evolution/Creation on Trial

[HitchSlap]

Sounds like they really researched it out.

Looks like scholars call them "paul letters" now?

"Pauline epistles" must be gender-misleading or something?

Pauline letters.
Romans
1/2 Corinthians
Galatians
Philemon
Philemon - maybe
1 Thes. - maybe

 

[AV1611VET]

Pauline letters.
Romans
1/2 Corinthians
Galatians
Philemon
Philemon - maybe
1 Thes. - maybe

Keep going.

 

[Goonie]

Keep going.

The remaining 4 letters are disputed by 80% (according to wiki admittedly) of scholars, timothy 1 and 2, titus, ephesians.

 

[briquest]

Mark 16:15 King James Version (KJV)
15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
repent and be Baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins

John 3:36
King James Bible
In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
1 Timothy 6:20
King James Bible
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called

 

[sfs]

If we're to stick with the trial theme here, I would say that Josephus' passages would be deemed inadmissible as evidence. One passage was tampered with. We know that. I move that both passages be struck from the record so as not to lend credence to either side.

Hitchslap is talking about history, not about a trial. We don't actually decide science in the courtroom, and we don't decide history that way either. History has to be reconstructed using the available information, and that frequently includes using documents that are second-hand, of uncertain accuracy and biased, and that have possibly been tampered with. In fact, it almost always includes using such documents, unless no documents are available at all. If you can conclude with high probability that a source has no reliable information, then you can discard it. Otherwise, no.

 

[crjmurray]

Hitchslap is talking about history, not about a trial. We don't actually decide science in the courtroom, and we don't decide history that way either. History has to be reconstructed using the available information, and that frequently includes using documents that are second-hand, of uncertain accuracy and biased, and that have possibly been tampered with. In fact, it almost always includes using such documents, unless no documents are available at all. If you can conclude with high probability that a source has no reliable information, then you can discard it. Otherwise, no.

We're in a thread entitled Evolution/Creation on trial.

I just thought we'd stick with the theme of the thread.

 

[Goonie]

Hitchslap is talking about history, not about a trial. We don't actually decide science in the courtroom, and we don't decide history that way either. History has to be reconstructed using the available information, and that frequently includes using documents that are second-hand, of uncertain accuracy and biased, and that have possibly been tampered with. In fact, it almost always includes using such documents, unless no documents are available at all. If you can conclude with high probability that a source has no reliable information, then you can discard it. Otherwise, no.

True, indeed a trial might find problems with a number of historical individuals if historians judged history on the basis of courtroom procedure.

 

[sfs]

We're in a thread entitled Evolution/Creation on trial.

I just thought we'd stick with the theme of the thread.

Then let's talk about evidence for creation and for evolution, rather than about the historical Jesus.

 

[crjmurray]

Then let's talk about evidence for creation and for evolution, rather than about the historical Jesus.

Alright easy doc.

 

[TillICollapse]

Then let's talk about evidence for creation and for evolution, rather than about the historical Jesus.

Can I make one more unrelated-OP post ?

I just got back from a bike ride with my kids, where we saw a bobcat with three young kittens and watched them for about a minute before they took off. Very cool

 

[AV1611VET]

Can I make one more unrelated-OP post ?

I just got back from a bike ride with my kids, where we saw a bobcat with three young kittens and watched them for about a minute before they took off. Very cool

At least you didn't have a narrator harping about how the tail evolved over millions of years, or how its eyes formed, or whatever.

Watch a simple show about kittens on Animal Planet and you get pumped full of biological evolution.

Go to the local observatory to see the rings of Saturn and you get pumped full of planetary evolution.

Go see the Grand Canyon and you get pumped full of geologic propaganda.

You can't even go to the zoo without getting an earful of this nonsense.

And it's going to get worse before it gets better.

Much worse.

 

[[serious]]

That's why I've asked to be buried with figs.

WHAT!? don't you know that God hates figs?

Matthew 21:19

 

[AV1611VET]

WHAT!? don't you know that God hates figs?

If He hates figs, why did He go to the tree in the first place?

 

[The Cadet]

Why in the thousands of generations of fly evolution tests in labs have we not seen a fly become something else besides a fly.

Care to define "fly"? I mean, biology defines a "true fly" as any member of the order Diptera, which is home to some 240,000 species. You wanna get a little more vague? I've heard Lenski's long-term E.Coli experiment dismissed under the pretext of "it's still a bacterium", but there are two entire domains of life dedicated solely to bacteria! Literally everything alive that is not a bacterium belongs to a single domain!

They have varied many things on the fly such as adding extra wings, more eyes and pacing its existing parts in new places on its body. But they have not added anything new as far as features are concerned in which it hasn't already got.

How in the world does "extra wings" or "extra eyes" not count? What, do you want them to grow a fingdongle or a schlinwangle or something? As for features it didn't already have, how about the E.Coli that evolved to digest citrate, or the bacteria that evolved to digest nylon?

No this is one of the only examples that evolutionists keep using

It's because it's easy for anyone to understand and immediately illustrative, whereas other examples may involve requiring a little bit of understanding of genetics.

They are still bacteria.

This is about as meaningful as saying "It's still an animal" to an experiment that used temporal magic to make a real-world example of the simulation in this video. Actually, less so - the kingdom of "Animalia" is way, way less diverse than the domain of "Bacteria". Yeah, they're still bacteria. Do you have any idea how much genetic diversity there is in the domain "bacteria"? It's the single most genetically diverse category you could bring up without calling "living organisms" a category!

The new functions are derived from the existing genetic info that is in the gene pool of those bacteria.

You seem to be playing fast and loose with "information" in this case. If a gene is duplicated and reinserted with a modification, there is now new genetic "information". This is exactly what evolution predicts to happen: new functions arise from the existing genetic information, gene duplication, and a handful of other factors.

The mechanism of gene duplication as the means to acquire new genes with previously nonexistent functions is inherently self limiting in that the function possessed by a new protein, in reality, is but a mere variation of the preexisted theme.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC345072/

What an odd thing for you to cite, given that it's presenting yet another way that completely novel new genes can arise. It's also odd given that Susumu Ohno basically spearheaded the study of gene duplication. I'm kind of left wondering why you're citing 30-year-old papers by someone who completely disagrees with you that you very obviously did not read even a sentence past the abstract!

Seriously, did you actually read this paper, or did you just see that sentence and say, "Yep, got my quote for the box blurb" and leave it at that? The very first paragraph, the very first sentence after the abstract makes it very clear what Ohno actually thinks about gene duplication, and if you actually read the introductory paragraph, you find out that he's talking about specifically the diversification at the dawn of life, and that he considers gene duplication responsible for virtually all diversification.

Given that Professor Ohno really was one of the great luminaries in genetics, you besmirching his work like this is really disappointing. When you cite papers, read them first. Otherwise you end up completely misrepresenting the work of people whose interns know more about the subject than you do.

The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzymes Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2011.1
The Limits of Complex Adaptation: An Analysis Based on a Simple Model of Structured Bacterial Populations
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.4

This is not a legitimate scientific journal but rather a 0-impact pay-to-play journal produced by the discovery institute. As such, I will read it the same way I would read any article published by the discovery institute: I won't bother.

Moving on!

Diminishing Returns Epistasis Among Beneficial Mutations Decelerates Adaptation
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21636771
Negative Epistasis Between Beneficial Mutations in an Evolving Bacterial Population
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21636772

Neither of these seem to have anything to do with what we were talking about, so I'm not sure why you brought them up.

Is gene duplication a viable explanation for the origination of biological information and complexity?
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cplx.20365/abstract

Let's point something out here right off the bat. This is a scientific paper supposedly challenging a major aspect of the theory that is the cornerstone of all of modern biology. It was published in an open-access (read: the person submitting the manuscript pays, rather than the reader) journal which currently has an impact factor of 1. That's... nothing. It's been cited... once. By another article published in the same journal five years later. For all intents and purposes, this essay (which is a 20-page slog that is about as concise as an Ayn Rand novel) has had no impact whatsoever. Why is that, I wonder? Could it be because there's just straight-up nothing there of value? Because the argument it puts forward in its conclusions runs directly contrary to everything found in the field over the last 40-odd years? Because it's just more junk science published in a vanity journal?

 

[[serious]]

If He hates figs, why did He go to the tree in the first place?

Teach it a lesson?

 

[AV1611VET]

Teach it a lesson?

I know it's done flippantly, but I'd seriously drop that "God hates figs" canard.

It tends to mar one's credibility later when one talks about how others should interpret the Bible.

 

[[serious]]

I know it's done flippantly, but I'd seriously drop that "God hates figs" canard.

It tends to mar one's credibility later when one talks about how others should interpret the Bible.

It's an obvious joke referencing one of the common parodies of the westboro baptist folks. If it offends you I'll refrain from that joke in the future though.

 

[TillICollapse]

At least you didn't have a narrator harping about how the tail evolved over millions of years, or how its eyes formed, or whatever.

Watch a simple show about kittens on Animal Planet and you get pumped full of biological evolution.

Go to the local observatory to see the rings of Saturn and you get pumped full of planetary evolution.

Go see the Grand Canyon and you get pumped full of geologic propaganda.

You can't even go to the zoo without getting an earful of this nonsense.

And it's going to get worse before it gets better.

Much worse.

None of that bothers me, but probably because evolution vs creation doesn't "do it for me", I wouldn't hang my hat on either one in order to conclude whether or not a supernatural being exists, unless someone defined such a being in a way that limited them to being one way or the other. But even then, I wouldn't presume that meant NO being existed whatsoever.

I've been to the Creation Museum out by Glen Rose, TX. I recall one of the first things I saw upon entering, was their mural of Adam and Eve ... Adam looked like a young Ronald Reagan, white as bread. Eve was white too, and you could see how they *tried* to make her attractive. Came off another way, imo. I found the whole museum to be "curiosity" level. I didn't rant and rave about anything. Perhaps when/if it gets to the point of effecting my children's education and what they have access to, I'll care. Until then, "meh".

What bothered me most about Glen Rose, was that I camped there ... the day after I left, one of the more interesting UFO sightings of recent times in the US took place right there Had I stayed just ONE more day, I could have perhaps been in the middle of it. Ugh !

 

[joshua 1 9]

It's my current (and recent) opinion that it's highly unlikely a literal Jesus (as defined in the bible) existed.

His teachings exist in the Bible. Does not matter where they come from. People are without excuse because we have the Bible to lead us and teach us the way of truth.

There is no other way to be saved other than the way Jesus provides for us.

 

[Subduction Zone]

His teachings exist in the Bible. Does not matter where they come from. People are without excuse because we have the Bible to lead us and teach us the way of truth.

There is no other way to be saved other than the way Jesus provides for us.

His teachings may be correct but that does not mean he was divine. There are all sorts of errors in the Bible too so you need to provide a bit more evidence that support your claims.