Evolution's Brick Wall

[inquiring mind]

You back down because, of course, ya got nuthin’.

You’re the one with nothing to offer. All you’ve done is make accusations... provided zero relevant responses with no substantial contributions as far as I’m concerned.

 

[pitabread]

In short Id say you're obviously correcting something thats not an error.

And I would say the fact you don't even know you are in error speaks volumes about the quality of your knowledge on the subject.

This isn't up for debate. Allele and trait mean different things. That's it.

 

[expos4ever]

You’re the one with nothing to offer. All you’ve done is make accusations... provided zero relevant responses with no substantial contributions as far as I’m concerned.

All I have done is call you out for abdicating your responsibility to bear the burden of proof for your own claim. And call out AV1611 for his untruths.

Look: you made a claim in the OP about what scientists believe. And, suspiciously, you left it to the reader to look up the very evidence you, as claimant, are obliged to provide.

As for AV, he falsely accused me of using lowball tactics. And he turned tail when I called him on his false claims.

This abuse of truth here needs to stop for the sake if the reputation of the Gospel.

 

[expos4ever]

Right now it is taught as correct in every public school in this country. Thats wrong.

Misleading. No teacher worth his/her salt would claim evolution is 100% true. You may insist on absolute certainty but that is not how science works.

 

[expos4ever]

This isn't up for debate. Allele and trait mean different things. That's it.

Of course! There is an odd phenomenon on this board: Rightly, abuses like goading are dealt with. But egregious untruths are allowed to stand. I am not suggesting that the mods should enforce truth-telling - that would be too difficult and there would be risk of abuse.

But let’s be clear: people perpetrate all manner of abuses of truth and sound reasoning here. And l, frankly, it is both embarrassing and a little frightening.

 

[dgiharris]

...Given the direct correlation between understanding of evolution and acceptance of it, if one's belief system is dependent on believing evolution is false, then ignorance is the best path..

I grew up Christian, still consider myself to be Christian...

When I was in college studying Math and Physics, as my knowledge of science grew, so to did my respect and awe of God. The more I learned, the more amazed I became....

All science does is "attempt" to explain "how" the universe works. That's it.

For the life of me, I never understood why the Christian faith is threatened by this?
Why are there Christians who purposefully want to pit religion against science?
Why are there Christians that have made "refusing to accept science" a sorta litmus test for Christian faith?

God created the Earth. God Created that rock on the ground over there. If you pick the rock up and drop it, it falls to the Earth. All science attempts to do is explain "why" the rock falls to the Earth. That's it. So does that explaining of "why" invalidate the existence of God? No.

God created all the life in the universe. All evolution is, is an explanation of the actual "mechanics" of how life formed. That's it. Understanding the mechanics of life formation does not take away the fact that God created all life. There is no conflict. Understanding how gravity works does NOT invalidate gravity.

Why do Christians need the creation and formation of life to be mysterious and inexplanable?
Why not require that of everything? Why not require 2 rocks plus 2 rocks equals 7 rocks?

 

[mark kennedy]

And I would say the fact you don't even know you are in error speaks volumes about the quality of your knowledge on the subject.

This isn't up for debate. Allele and trait mean different things. That's it.

Which tells me how little you known about how the term is used and certainly, what variant genes do. You spring board from the pedantic to the irrelevant and make sweeping generalities about things you don't even bother to do the background reading about. Your an instant expert based on confronting creationists who based everything on a correction of a statement that was never an error. There's one in every thread and it speaks volumes for that lack of depth needed to be a Darwinian apologist. Personally I think your being used and you will never know or care.

 

[pitabread]

Which tells me how little you known about how the term is used and certainly, what variant genes do.

Tell you what, you go write a biology exam where you equate the term "allele" with the term "trait" and see how it gets marked.

Then come back and we'll talk about it.

 

[mark kennedy]

Tell you what, you go write a biology exam where you equate the term "allele" with the term "trait" and see how it gets marked.

Then come back and we'll talk about it.

No need, it's little more then semantics and you where never more then a diversion.

 

[tas8831]

I didn't realize you knew so much about me... please continue while I take notes.

I drew conclusions from what you wrote. Like when you wrote:

"How long will it take for academia's [sic] and evolutionists to admit that Creation is the likely option if no such route is found, 100 years, 200 years, 500 years, never?"

I was pretty sure you weren't serious.

And later:

"The brick wall... no evidence (transitional fossils)... that's the limit right now."

and then:

"...why isn’t there a lot of definite fossil evidence for a transition route from ape to man? After all the research & study that’s been done there should be something more than connecting the dots (as AV says). Government and science have based our whole education system on it."

and so on - I drew the conclusions I did.

If you want to be snarky and silly, go ahead, but your words indicate that my impressions are correct.

 

[tas8831]

You did though... try to push the point under the rug. You can't be talking about a process that supposedly takes millions of years and then try to score a point talking about my parents, a time span of 20-25 years. That doesn't make sense and doesn't draw any picture that might answer the point. It was a distraction...

Ok... Maybe if I dumb it down some more?

You claim that ancestral species cannot be alive at the same time their descendants are, yes?

That is what you wrote (in so many words):

"As it "evolved" into a larger, stronger, and more resourceful animal, the previous version dies off. However... that isn't the case with humans!? The early version of man, the Ape, is still alive and well and would be thriving if not for man's encroachment into their living areas."

Yes or no?

If you believe that "the previous version" dies off (because of 'survival of the fittest - which you also misunderstand), then my point was that the notion that your parents die when you are born is just as silly.

In any event, there is no sense in continuing here. Take care, be well, have a great life.

Whatever "Ken." Keep misrepresenting evolution to make yourself feel better about rejecting science.

 

[tas8831]

And you can't google.

Your antics would indicate that you are trapped by a made-up claim and are just playing games. Typical.

 

[pitabread]

it's little more then semantics

You do know that words have meanings and that those meanings are in most cases not interchangeable? If you don't care what words mean especially when it comes discussing science, then by all means have at it. But doing so only hurts whatever air of authority you keep trying to cultivate in your posts.

 

[tas8831]

Wow, you just can't help yourself, can you?

For example, like a creature with a fin where said fin turns to a boney fin and then turns into an arm, etc, but without fossils (fossil evidence) showing such inbetween morphological changes. They will present fossils with large gaps between them = macro-assemblages. Conjecture-based fossil mix and match, as the below shows.

So precious...

Tell us all - when you were becoming the expert paleontologist you keep presenting yourself as, and when you were gaining your imaginary expertise in molecular biology, did you learn about the association between genes and phenotypes?

Because you don't seem to understand it - maybe you forgot?

Here is why I know you don't understand this (or perhaps you do and are just "witnessing"?) - ever heard of dwarfism? AKA Achondroplasia?
Those with this genetic issue have disproportional limb/trunk growth, diagnostic facial features (e.g., shortened nasal bones), reduction in the number of interphalangeal joints, etc.

But you know what? Parents with normal phenotype can give birth to achondroplastic children. And achondroplastic adults can give birth to normal phenotype children.
In one generation.
There is no "in between", no fine gradation.

You want to know why? Because the point mutation that causes achondroplasia (the familial kind, anyway) produces ALL of those changes, during the development of that single afflicted individual.


So your constant harping about finer-scale intermediates exposes two aspects of your ignorance:

1. You seem to believe that all creatures should become fossils (in which case I eagerly await your presentation of the fossils of Adam);
2. All morphological change MUST be accomplished via fine gradations between forms (that, by extension, must be cause by mutations).

This is naivete bordering on absurdity, especially when you, like so many creationists, present yourself as some sort of authority.

Personally, I think the fin-to-limb transition could have been accomplished by relatively few mutations, because unlike you, even though I do not claim to be an expert, I clearly understand more about things like taphonomy and evolution and development and the relationship between genotype/mutations and phenotype/morphology/physiology than you do.

 

[tas8831]

You'll have to. You sure turned a simple question into a major project.

Stands to reason that you might want to understand things like fossilization if your are making claims about transitional fossils, no? No - I forgot creationists don't think they need to know things.

 

[mark kennedy]

You do know that words have meanings and that those meanings are in most cases not interchangeable? If you don't care what words mean especially when it comes discussing science, then by all means have at it. But doing so only hurts whatever air of authority you keep trying to cultivate in your posts.

As usual you have managed to miss the whole point, dragging everything into an irrelavat semantical correction. I was making the point that alleles were originally only identified as traits and the term was used that way because in Mendilian genetics those genes responsible could be known no other way. The laws of segregation and independent assortment were developed decades before genes could be identified on a molecular basis. The focus was on how dominant and recessive traits were expressed in the off spring 3 to 1. That was the predictive model that became the foundation of modern genetics for half a century before the sequence of the protein coding gene could even be identified.

Yes, of course I understand that ultimately the two copies of the gene represent variant sequences, as would a mutated gene. But the insistence that the term alleles is not a reference to traits completely ignores how that term was long used exclusively with reference to expressed traits. You were correcting a statement not in error not to clarify a substantive point but to bury one in pointless semantics.

Which brings us back to the original point, most of the variation expressed as traits are from the expression of dominant ant recessive genes and limited to those two. Mutations play a minor role in adaptive evolution, not with standing a molecular mechanisms capable of changing those sequences. Mutations are copy errors and a failure of DNA repair that, when they do have an effect are almost always deleterious.

I suggest you take some time to move beyond your pedantic correction and learn something about genetics. Correcting and criticizing creationists doesn't make you any more knowledgeable and your missing out on research that is growing by leaps and bounds. I've seen so many like you who spend all their time attacking creationists and never get around to learning the basics. I'm a history buff so I find Mendel more interesting the Francis Collins. That's not to say I'm oblivious to the history in the making as new discoveries are being unveiled, it's actually an attempt to better appreciate them.

 

[inquiring mind]

All I have done is call you out for abdicating your responsibility to bear the burden of proof for your own claim. And call out AV1611 for his untruths.

Look: you made a claim in the OP about what scientists believe. And, suspiciously, you left it to the reader to look up the very evidence you, as claimant, are obliged to provide.

As for AV, he falsely accused me of using lowball tactics. And he turned tail when I called him on his false claims.

This abuse of truth here needs to stop for the sake if the reputation of the Gospel.

This is from the Creation & Evolution forum statement of purpose:

• When you disagree with someone's position, you should post evidence and supporting statements for your position. This policy, sometimes referred to as "X means Y because of Z", must be followed especially when posting claims that are widely considered to be controversial.

Since you’re disagreeing with the position I presented, it looks to me as though you're the one who needs to be posting supporting statements, instead of “liar, liar – pants on fire!” I provided support anyway... so where’s your supportive disagreement evidence?

 

[mnorian]

Mod hat on

It has come to our attention that there is goading and off-topic posts in this thread; please be aware of the SOP of this forum.
From the SOP:
Members who participate in the Creation & Evolution forum are expected to treat one another with courtesy and respect at all times, ESPECIALLY when you disagree with each other. It is not a flame for a member to disagree with another member's argument or opinion on a specific topic.

• • When you disagree, address the content of the post and not the poster.

• • When you disagree with someone's position, you should post evidence and supporting statements for your position. This policy, sometimes referred to as "X means Y because of Z", must be followed especially when posting claims that are widely considered to be controversial.

• • When you disagree and you find yourself becoming frustrated and angry, step away from the computer and give yourself time to cool down.

• • Always proofread your post before hitting the "Reply" button to make sure you have responded with courtesy and respect.

All posts are expected to be in compliance with the site rules as well as the the Guidelines for all Discussion and Debate Forums.
Off Topic Threads: Make sure that you are posting within the purpose of the forum. To prevent off topic threads, make your OP clear and ask questions or make statements that address one of the Creation & Evolution topics.

Carry on.
​

 

[inquiring mind]

Your antics would indicate that you are trapped by a made-up claim and are just playing games. Typical.

And to think, I even made it easy for you and pointed you to the last 16 minutes of a documentary that has actual scientists in it, who apparently are in the same camp you’re in, saying essentially what I did (that was my take on it anyway). As I suspected though, I just wasted my time... evidently you won’t research beyond your own opinion.

 

[pitabread]

As usual you have managed to miss the whole point, dragging everything into an irrelavat semantical correction.

All I did was point out that your statement that "alleles are traits" is technically incorrect as alleles refer to gene variants. Getting defensive about this is what has dragged this out.

It's like if you were claim that instructions to build furniture is furniture. It's a statement that doesn't make sense.

But the insistence that the term alleles is not a reference to traits completely ignores how that term was long used exclusively with reference to expressed traits. You were correcting a statement not in error not to clarify a substantive point but to bury one in pointless semantics.

I never said that alleles are not a reference to traits (in the sense that gene expression gives rise to traits). I just said they are not one and the same thing. That's it.

I suggest you take some time to move beyond your pedantic correction and learn something about genetics. Correcting and criticizing creationists doesn't make you any more knowledgeable and your missing out on research that is growing by leaps and bounds. I've seen so many like you who spend all their time attacking creationists and never get around to learning the basics.

Considering the number of times you get corrected here, perhaps you should take your own advice.