Evolution is not science

[HitchSlap]

Do creationists attend quote mining school?

Yes. It's a creo 100 level course.

 

[Subduction Zone]

.

Beneficial mutations anyone? Nothing like real world results?

Just line people up to have x-ray or other mutation methods and lets see what results.

Oh, cancer, the cells went goofy.

You have heard it before - 99.999% of all genetic mutations are deadly. Of course over millions of years of geologic time the beneficial mutations happen to always produce the ramp from high to higher life forms, even until homo sapiens.

Evolution is a faith people walk in, and it never happened.

.

Lenski's experiment, e. Coli developed the ability to digest citrate. Nylonaise. I am sure a biologist could supply many.

 

[HitchSlap]

.

Beneficial mutations anyone? Nothing like real world results?

Just line people up to have x-ray or other mutation methods and lets see what results.

Oh, cancer, the cells went goofy.

You have heard it before - 99.999% of all genetic mutations are deadly. Of course over millions of years of geologic time the beneficial mutations happen to always produce the ramp from high to higher life forms, even until homo sapiens.

Evolution is a faith people walk in, and it never happened.

.

Was the genetic mutation for blue eyes deadly? Perhaps the mutation that allows humans to digest cow's milk?

 

[Subduction Zone]

.

OK, some are a little slow I see.

The OP recently included 20 items against evolution. A point by point refute has not occurred.

Let me take just one point as I have in past posts and emphasize: for any Naturalist to show me in the sedimentary rock record over the past 500 million years to show one Ancestral "species" to Descendent "species" transition fossil series as real world proof of evolution.

That's just 1 of the 20 on the list to refute.

Suduction Zone couldn't do it. Let's see if any one else can "prove" evolution by, you got it, evidence.

If evolution is based on science then prove it.

There was no need to. They were all wrong. He made the claim it is up to him to defend them.

Did you notice that I did correct the list?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do creationists attend quote mining school?

It is almost "inborn" into creationists by their religion. Have you ever seen the so called list of hundreds of prophesies that Jesus fulfilled? Most of them are quote mines of the Bible. In other words they have no fear of quote mining their own holy book. Do you think that they would be afraid to quote mine something that they do not respect?

 

[Loudmouth]

Another one by Fred Hoyle...

"Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random
is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think
that the favorable properties of physics, on which life depends, are in
every respect deliberate... It is almost inevitable that our own measure of
intelligence must reflect higher intelligence -- even to the limit of God."

Sir Fred Hoyle & Chandra Wickramasinghe
Prof of Astronomy, Cambridge University
Prof of Astronomy and Applied Mathematics
University College, Cardiff
Evolution from Space, J.M.Dent, 1981, pp 141,144

Please present the research demonstrating this claim is correct.

 

[Loudmouth]

.

OK, some are a little slow I see.

The OP recently included 20 items against evolution. A point by point refute has not occurred.

Let me take just one point as I have in past posts and emphasize: for any Naturalist to show me in the sedimentary rock record over the past 500 million years to show one Ancestral "species" to Descendent "species" transition fossil series as real world proof of evolution.

That's just 1 of the 20 on the list to refute.

Suduction Zone couldn't do it. Let's see if any one else can "prove" evolution by, you got it, evidence.

If evolution is based on science then prove it.

"4. Speciation has never been observed"

Observed Instances of Speciation

Some More Observed Speciation Events

 

[Loudmouth]

It's NOT a mutation which could ever agglomerate with other like mutations to render the Volkswagon as a Maserati Merak in good condition. THAT is what evolution requires.

Since when does evolution require mutations in cars? You aren't making sense.

Please show us a single difference between humans and chimps that could not have been produced by the observed processes of mutation. Just one. I challenge you.

 

[Loudmouth]

.

Beneficial mutations anyone? Nothing like real world results?

They are amongst the 35 million mutations that separate humans and chimps.

You have heard it before - 99.999% of all genetic mutations are deadly.

Creationists like to claim that, but not one of them can produce a single scientific paper backing it up. Can you support this claim, or are you going to continue to spread this falsehood?

 

[Split Rock]

That's BS, there ARE NO such examples. In particular, there are no examples of a mutation which could be viewed as a step in the direction of a new and/or more complex KIND of animal.
.

Stop the goal post moving right there. I gave you an example of a beneficial mutation in goosegrass that provides resistance to the herbicide glyphosate. If you are going to claim I am B.S.ing, then address the evidence I provided here: http://www.christianforums.com/t3309652/

Once that is settled, and you stop questioning whether beneficial mutations "even exist," then we can talk about evolving a new "kind" (whatever that is) of organism.

 

[Split Rock]

Same sorry BS about microbes mutating into more microbes...

If anybody ever tried to sell a house or a car the way you clowns sell evoloserism, he'd be in prison for fraud.

Its creationists who wind up in prision for fraud. Evangelist Hovind found guilty for tax fraud - Wikinews, the free news source

 

[Split Rock]

The claim is that every one of these quotes and all others like them have been taken out of context in so egregious a fashion as to invert the meaning of the original statement, whatever that might have been.

An intelligent reader should only need to peruse a few of these statements to comprehend what a crock of BS that is.

He would need to peruse the entire original statement, without it being taken out of context and bisected by strategically placed cuts replaced with "..." But you didn't bother to do that when you plagarized whatever "Creation Minsitry" website you ripped those quotes out of... did you?

Do you also think that my quote mine (which I came up with myself, btw) accurately reflects what those creationists were saying?

 

[Split Rock]

Same sorry BS about microbes mutating into more microbes...
.

Similarly we are eukaryotes, just as our ancestors were eukaryotes. Do you accept that?

 

[KWCrazy]

Can you support this claim, or are you going to continue to spread this falsehood?

One study on genetic variations between different species of Drosophila suggests that if a mutation changes a protein produced by a gene, the result is likely to be harmful, with an estimated 70 percent of amino acid polymorphisms which have damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or weakly beneficial. Due to the damaging effects that mutations can have on genes, organisms have mechanisms such as DNA repair to prevent or correct (revert the mutated sequence back to its original state) mutations.
source

So 99.999% is an exaggeration. It IS TRUE to say that most mutations are deleterious or neutral. Only a small percentage are benevolent. The reason that benevolent mutations are said to be the driving force of evolution is that there is nothing else evolutionists could cite other than freak copy errors to explain increasing complexity. Even in that they have a problem, because increasing complexity has never been observed. All they can point to is the change in diet of bacteria; which by definition are highly adaptable.

You won't find much data on the unlikelihood of benevolent mutations because biologists have already decided that they have to be common enough to account for the speciation of an entire planet. Information to the contrary isn't going to find itself published in the fabled "peer reviewed" papers in which evolutionists stroke each other about their own observations. The global warming fraud is just one example of how many "scientists" are merely in it for the money and will publish whatever conclusions the ones funding them would like to see. The fact remains that science is a business. So long as people are willing to shell out money for research supporting their contention that everything evolved from nothing without any help from God, then you will continue to see more and more "evidence" that evolution is proven science.

In the end, it all comes down to who you believe; God or talkorigins.com.

 

[Subduction Zone]

<snip>
In the end, it all comes down to who you believe; God or talkorigins.com.

No, it all comes down to whether you believe scientists who have studied and tested this subject, or a book filled with errors and self contradictions that certain extremists claim is the word of God, even though it was obviously written by man.

 

[Loudmouth]

One study on genetic variations between different species of Drosophila suggests that if a mutation changes a protein produced by a gene, the result is likely to be harmful, with an estimated 70 percent of amino acid polymorphisms which have damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or weakly beneficial.

That is a far cry from the 99.9% being harmful, isn't it. First, how much of the fruit fly genome is made up of DNA responsible for proteins? In humans it is just 3%. The ENCODE project found that only 20% of the human genome contains selectable, sequence specific function meaning that mutations in the other 80% of the genome are largely neutral. If 70% of the 3% of mutations that occur in genes are detrimental, that means that just 2.1% of mutations are harmful. 2.1%. Not a majority. Not even an extremely high number. Just 2.1% by your own numbers.

Due to the damaging effects that mutations can have on genes, organisms have mechanisms such as DNA repair to prevent or correct (revert the mutated sequence back to its original state) mutations.
source

Every human is born with mutations. Are you aware of this?

It IS TRUE to say that most mutations are deleterious or neutral.

No, it isn't. It is a lie.

The reason that benevolent mutations are said to be the driving force of evolution is that there is nothing else evolutionists could cite other than freak copy errors to explain increasing complexity.

We observe mutations occuring, and they explain the differences we see between species.

You won't find much data on the unlikelihood of benevolent mutations because biologists have already decided that they have to be common enough to account for the speciation of an entire planet. Information to the contrary isn't going to find itself published in the fabled "peer reviewed" papers in which evolutionists stroke each other about their own observations.

So now you think your made up fantasies can suffice for real scientific evidence? Really?

Instead of fake conspiracy theories, why don't you present some real science for once.

 

[Loudmouth]

How could it be a lie if I sourced it with a link?

It becomes a lie when you claim that your source says things it doesn't say.

Moreover, how could anyone who pretended to know anything whatever about biology NOT know that only a small percentage of mutations are benevolent;

Why is that a problem?

that most are deleterious or neutral?

And of the mutations that are either deleterious or neutral, the vast majority are neutral, not detrimental as creationists claim.

The simple fact is that articles which support creation has as much chance of getting published in evolution friendly journals as evolution friendly articles have of getting published in creationists publications. It's foolishness to assert that one or the other must be a source for conclusions contrary to the opinions of the publication.

Are you telling me that religious organizations will not publish science demonstrating that their beliefs are true? Really? Who are these scientists producing this research that they can not get published? What experiments are they doing?

The fact of the matter is that private, religiously based schools with scientific research departments teach and use evolution, not creationism.

The conspiracy has already been documented. The emails have been released. Collusion and fraud have already been demonstrated. It's no longer a conspiracy theory it's a conspiracy fact. "Scientists" have been caught faking their data for political and financial benefit.

It is a conspiracy theory. There is no research supporting creationism to publish. It doesn't exist.

 

[Heissonear]

Lenski's experiment, e. Coli developed the ability to digest citrate. Nylonaise. I am sure a biologist could supply many.

Read in context, it would help. Are you ready for a dose of mutations?

 

[Heissonear]

No, it all comes down to whether you believe scientists who have studied and tested this subject, or a book filled with errors and self contradictions that certain extremists claim is the word of God, even though it was obviously written by man.

Your science boils down to evidence. Where is the transition fossils evidence I've repeatedly requested?

 

[HitchSlap]

Your science boils down to evidence. Where is the transition fossils evidence I've repeatedly requested?

T. roseae