Evolution/Creation on Trial

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I most certainly can say that. I just can't know for certain what a kind is.

Then you admit you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Smidlee]

ID would predict ALL the junk DNA would have function, and science is not supporting that.

I don't know any ID who made that claim as even creationist that believes mankind is slowly losing genetic information thinks there would be some broken code.

 

[Oncedeceived]

ID would predict ALL the junk DNA would have function, and science is not supporting that.

The only way that no junk DNA would be predicted by ID is if evolution never happens. Evolution happens. It is not evolution then no God or God and no evolution.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Then you admit you don't know what you are talking about.

Why should I admit that?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Why should I admit that?

Well, you have already admitted you cannot define "kind" but still intend to use it to express your point of view, and so it seems you have already made that admission. In truth, this is a long standing shortcoming of the creationist side, because there are those who say evolution is possible within a certain range . . . that is, within a given "kind" . . but no further. And yet they can never define that limit, they can never propose a mechanism for the way that "kind limit" actually functions. This is not the way to discuss science.

In truth, the nested hierarchy of life shows a broad expansion of the idea of "kind". Mammals came along, and all their descendents are mammal kind. Within the mammal kind, came along primates; and all the rest of their descendants remain primates. There came along apes; and all their descendants are of the ape kind. There came along hominids and all their descendants are of the hominid kind. We came along as one of that kind, and we remain apes, we remains primates, we remain mammals, we remain tetrapods, we remain chordates, we remain multicellular bilateral creatures.

Nested kinds. Evidence for evolution.

 

[USincognito]

Of course in this situation you have bad/good mutations at 50% which is unrealisitc.


Again we know this because we can study them alive. A caterpillar transforming into a butterfly is not like an acorn become a tree. We have evidence of different body plans can come from the same DNA. If chimps DNA were 100% identical to man's it wouldn't automatically mean the chimp would be a scientist.

Re: Bold - Yes it is. It's the exact same thing.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I don't know any ID who made that claim as even creationist that believes mankind is slowly losing genetic information thinks there would be some broken code.

Well, you have a point there. Perhaps we should ask creationists for predictions as to how much junk DNA we could find in progressively older specimens of humanity and other animals, and compare them with what we find. Clearly the evolutionary prediction is that there is no reason for junk DNA to be very different in its percentage of our genome ten thousand years ago compared to now; at least some varieties of creationism would say the percentages would be very different. Would you agree this is a test worth checking out?

 

[Smidlee]

Re: Bold - Yes it is. It's the exact same thing.

one word : metamorphosis

 

[Oncedeceived]

Well, you have already admitted you cannot define "kind" but still intend to use it to express your point of view, and so it seems you have already made that admission. In truth, this is a long standing shortcoming of the creationist side, because there are those who say evolution is possible within a certain range . . . that is, within a given "kind" . . but no further. And yet they can never define that limit, they can never propose a mechanism for the way that "kind limit" actually functions. This is not the way to discuss science.

I don't use it to express my point of view other than showing that evolution is implied within the Genesis Narrative and I don't need to know what Kind is to know that it implies this. However, we do know there is some kind of limits to evolution as some studies have shown this.

In truth, the nested hierarchy of life shows a broad expansion of the idea of "kind". Mammals came along, and all their descendents are mammal kind. Within the mammal kind, came along primates; and all the rest of their descendants remain primates. There came along apes; and all their descendants are of the ape kind. There came along hominids and all their descendants are of the hominid kind. We came along as one of that kind, and we remain apes, we remains primates, we remain mammals, we remain tetrapods, we remain chordates, we remain multicellular bilateral creatures.

Nested kinds. Evidence for evolution.

Perhaps. Yet we are seeing a great deal of discordance in those "nests" when we have the entire genome to go by.

 

[USincognito]

Your video assume you can compare human DNA with another creature DNA just like you would compared human DNA with another human DNA.

Please. Do go on. Explain to us the magical component that makes human DNA substantially different from the DNA of our fellow animals or plants, fungi, etc.

It assumes what makes you human is totally your DNA. Note that's a assumption not a fact.

No, it's a fact. This however:

If you put human DNA in a chicken egg it's a scientific fact the chicken egg will try to develop a chicken and not a human.

Is not a fact. If you put human DNA into a chicken egg, it simply won't do anything.

 

[USincognito]

The majority of those biologist who involved in the ENCODE project believes over 80% of human genome were functional and DarwinisT attack the results as if ENCODE was done by creationist.

What gets attacked are Creationist and IDist mischaracterizations of what ENCODE actually found.

 

[USincognito]

one word : metamorphosis

Yes. That's a very nice word. It describes the process by which the larval stage of some insects matures into the adult stage. Just as germination describes how an acorn beings the maturation process into an adult oak tree.

There is zero change to the DNA of the beings in question at different stages.

 

[joshua 1 9]

It is precisely the strength of the OBJECTIVE evidence, as to why 99% of Phd level biologists, agree that evolution happens.

"Evolution happens" is little more then a dog and monkey show. You know a show of monkeys riding dogs. Why don't we cut to the chase and see what they really believe. I assume that you do not mind that I use a 7 year old Biology book. Although that in and of itself is interesting sense a Biology book cost over $200 new and 7 years later is worth less then a dollar. Now lets look at what the Brooker says: "Obviously we cannot take a time machine back 4 billion years and determine with certainty how these events occurred", This approach has led researchers to a variety of hypotheses regarding the origin of life, none of which can be verified". "certain possibilities are more plausible" "Several Scientific Hypotheses have been proposed" not the least of which is the "Extraterrestrial Hypothesis". Then I see terms like: "may have formed", "may have originated", "may have evolved". Here is something about "catastrophic floods have periodically had a major impacts". Interesting that catastrophism finds its way into the Biology book. Then we look at the "Cambrian explosion occurred in which there was an abrupt increase". So what does catastrophism and explosions have to do with slow gradual change over time? Here we are told: "The cause of the Cambrian explosion is not understood".

Terms like we cannot determine with any certainty, none can be verified, may have formed, may have originated, may have evolved, the cause is not understood. I do not think biology is so sure of what they believe. I see no indication at all of a 99% agreement. Just the opposite actually.

Lets see if we can not cherry pick our way through the next chapter to see what we find there: "a precise definition of species is not always possible". Yet evolutionists love to gourd Christians over what their definition of a kind is. Yet they do not seem to have any real definition of their own. Next we see a reference to "Empirical thought". So the question is do your supposed 99% of Biologists believe in possibilities that are more plausible, or do they just endorse Empirical thought?

Did you know that Adam was the first "husband" in the Bible? We are talking more that just a husband to Eve. Even today they use the term animal husbandry. Do you really think that Darwin discovered something about the selective breeding of Animals that Adam did not already know 6,000 years ago?

 

[bhsmte]

"Evolution happens" is little more then a dog and monkey show. You know a show of monkeys riding dogs. Why don't we cut to the chase and see what they really believe. I assume that you do not mind that I use a 7 year old Biology book. Although that in and of itself is interesting sense a Biology book cost over $200 new and 7 years later is worth less then a dollar. Now lets look at what the Brooker says: "Obviously we cannot take a time machine back 4 billion years and determine with certainty how these events occurred", This approach has led researchers to a variety of hypotheses regarding the origin of life, none of which can be verified". "certain possibilities are more plausible" "Several Scientific Hypotheses have been proposed" not the least of which is the "Extraterrestrial Hypothesis". Then I see terms like: "may have formed", "may have originated", "may have evolved". Here is something about "catastrophic floods have periodically had a major impacts". Interesting that catastrophism finds its way into the Biology book. Then we look at the "Cambrian explosion occurred in which there was an abrupt increase". So what does catastrophism and explosions have to do with slow gradual change over time? Here we are told: "The cause of the Cambrian explosion is not understood".

Terms like we cannot determine with any certainty, none can be verified, may have formed, may have originated, may have evolved, the cause is not understood. I do not think biology is so sure of what they believe. I see no indication at all of a 99% agreement. Just the opposite actually.

Lets see if we can not cherry pick our way through the next chapter to see what we find there: "a precise definition of species is not always possible". Yet evolutionists love to gourd Christians over what their definition of a kind is. Yet they do not seem to have any real definition of their own. Next we see a reference to "Empirical thought". So the question is do your supposed 99% of Biologists believe in possibilities that are more plausible, or do they endorse Empirical thought?

Did you know that Adam was the first "husband" in the Bible? We are talking more that just a husband to Eve. Even today they use the term animal husbandry. Do you really think that Darwin discovered something about the selective breeding of Animals that Adam did not already know 6,000 years ago?

I don't go by what a bunch of anonymous authors wrote in stories thousands of years ago, I go by what the evidence supports.

You can deny the evidence and believe the stories though if you want.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I most certainly can say that. I just can't know for certain what a kind is.

According to the Biology book: "a precise definition of species is not always possible". So it looks like science maybe having a bit of trouble knowing for sure just what a species is.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I don't go by what a bunch of anonymous authors wrote in stories thousands of years ago, I go by what the evidence supports.

You can deny the evidence and believe the stories though if you want.

I am not denying the evidence. I am not denying anything. I simply point out that science is not as sure of itself as you seem to think they are. Your claim that Biology is 99% sure of what they believe simply does not hold up.

 

[bhsmte]

I am not denying the evidence. I am not denying anything. I simply point out that science is not as sure of itself as you seem to think they are. Your claim that Biology is 99% sure of what they believe simply does not hold up.

I said that 99% of Phd biologists, agree with evolution.

Some will comment, on how potent the evidence is as well, like the renowned scientist and devout christian, Francis Collins:

Karl Giberson: One of the things I appreciate a lot about Darrel Falk, who I think is a courageous voice in this conversation, is that he will come out and say that common ancestry is simply a fact. And that if you’re not willing to concede that the genetic evidence points to common ancestry than you’re essentially denying the field of biology the possibility of having facts at all. That’s the strong language that he uses.

Would you say that common ancestry and evolution in general is at that level? How compelling is the evidence at this point?

Francis Collins: The evidence is overwhelming. And it is becoming more and more robust down to the details almost by the day, especially because we have this ability now to use the study of DNA as a digital record of the way Darwin’s theory has played out over the course of long periods of time.

Darwin could hardly have imagined that there would turn out to be such strong proof of his theory because he didn’t know about DNA - but we have that information. I would say we are as solid in claiming the truth of evolution as we are in claiming the truth of the germ theory. It is so profoundly well-documented in multiple different perspectives, all of which give you a consistent view with enormous explanatory power that make it the central core of biology. Trying to do biology without evolution would be like trying to do physics without mathematics

 

[justlookinla]

Francis Collins: The evidence is overwhelming. And it is becoming more and more robust down to the details almost by the day, especially because we have this ability now to use the study of DNA as a digital record of the way Darwin’s theory has played out over the course of long periods of time.

Darwin could hardly have imagined that there would turn out to be such strong proof of his theory because he didn’t know about DNA - but we have that information. I would say we are as solid in claiming the truth of evolution as we are in claiming the truth of the germ theory. It is so profoundly well-documented in multiple different perspectives, all of which give you a consistent view with enormous explanatory power that make it the central core of biology. Trying to do biology without evolution would be like trying to do physics without mathematics

Additionally, from Collins' website.....

"We believe that the diversity and interrelation of all life on earth are best explained by the God-ordained process of evolution with common descent. Thus, evolution is not in opposition to God, but a means by which God providentially achieves his purposes. Therefore, we reject ideologies that claim that evolution is a purposeless process or that evolution replaces God."​

 

[joshua 1 9]

I said that 99% of Phd biologists, agree with evolution.

So 99% agree that we can not know for sure. I mean that is fine that they agree with evolution, only evolution itself has more holes in it than swiss cheese. I do not disagree with you, I only ask that you clarify your statement to show us what they believe is not engraved in stone but what they believe is in a constant state of flux (to borrow a star wars term).

Francis Collins: The evidence is overwhelming.

I am not 100% in agreement with Collins, but I have read some of his books and I do go along with a lot of what he says. He is a perfect example of someone that finds harmony between his religious beliefs and his scientific standards. We could all learn from his example. Perhaps that is why he gets to be the director and make the big bucks

I have no disagreement with you. My problem is with science and their rather high degree of uncertainty. If you feel a need to defend biological science that is fine. I am sure there are many wonderful things to say about the progress they are making.

Would you say that common ancestry and evolution in general is at that level? How compelling is the evidence at this point?

Yes of course. Even science borrows Bible terms when they talk about Mitochondrial Adam and Eve and Eden. This is a lot more of an area of agreement then people seem to realize.

he didn’t know about DNA

Darwin and Mendel is a story all by itself.

 

[bhsmte]

So 99% agree that we can not know for sure. I mean that is fine that they agree with evolution, only evolution itself has more holes in it than swiss cheese. I do not disagree with you, I only ask that you clarify your statement to show us what they believe is not engraved in stone but what they believe is in a constant state of flux (to borrow a star wars term).

I am not 100% in agreement with Collins, but I have read some of his books and I do go along with a lot of what he says. He is a perfect example of someone that finds harmony between his religious beliefs and his scientific standards. We could all learn from his example. Perhaps that is why he gets to be the director and make the big bucks

I have no disagreement with you. My problem is with science and their rather high degree of uncertainty. If you feel a need to defend biological science that is fine. I am sure there are many wonderful things to say about the progress they are making.

Yes of course. Even science borrows Bible terms when they talk about Mitochondrial Adam and Eve and Eden. This is a lot more of an area of agreement then people seem to realize.

Darwin and Mendel is a story all by itself.

Let me ask you, does Collins as a geneticist and a world renowned one, sound uncertain about evolution? To me, he sounds as if he is about as certain as he can get. Who do you think is in a better position to have a valid opinion of the evidence, Collins, or you?

Francis Collins: The evidence is overwhelming. And it is becoming more and more robust down to the details almost by the day, especially because we have this ability now to use the study of DNA as a digital record of the way Darwin’s theory has played out over the course of long periods of time.

Darwin could hardly have imagined that there would turn out to be such strong proof of his theory because he didn’t know about DNA - but we have that information. I would say we are as solid in claiming the truth of evolution as we are in claiming the truth of the germ theory. It is so profoundly well-documented in multiple different perspectives, all of which give you a consistent view with enormous explanatory power that make it the central core of biology. Trying to do biology without evolution would be like trying to do physics without mathematics