How an Evangelical Creationist Accepted Evolution

[sfs]

You continue to fail to show how the mutations add up.
You would think the evos would have answered this question...instead of claiming it is buried amongs the pages of PDF's.

Changing the subject again, I see. Let me recap. . . You asked for examples of beneficial mutations. I gave some to you. You asked for a morphological mutation. I gave that to you. You asked how many beneficial mutations there have been. I gave you an estimate. You accused me of making up numbers. I explained my reasoning (with references). All of that happened in previous threads.

Now in this thread, you've started over from the beginning -- including accusing me of making up numbers. At no point do you acknowledge that you've been given exactly what you asked for, or that now you've asked the exact same questions and had them answered before, or that you've falsely accused me of something. Instead, you just skip on to the next question. What on earth are you trying to accomplish here, other than annoying everyone?

 

[-57]

evolution can produce phenomenally complex systems

My argument is that evolution can't produce phenomenally complex systems. Incredulity has nothing to do with it.
The process involved. (explained poorly)
The protein synthesis described in the video requires much more than evolution to create the process...from the copying of the DNA instruction..to the creation of the RNA transcript..through the passing through a molecular machine called the nuclear core complex (which BTW has to have been construced via complex DNA code that created other machines to build it) that controls he flow of infomation in and out of the cells nucleus. Next it goes through a two part chemical factory called a ribosone....after that an assembly line builds a chain of amino acids using instructions on a transcript. The amino acids are transported...to where they will be constructed...then sent off to yet another barrel shaped machine which folds the proteins into precise shapes that will allow it to perform a function.....it is the released into the outher cytoplasm where it can do its job in the cell.

This process is well above Incredulity. There are secondary processes involved which need to work in harmony with other process that are more complex that what the DNA is asking to be constructed.

What you have done is nothing more than hand-waving...claiming evolution can produce phenomenally complex systems...with out presenting a process to actually do what you claim happens with some regularity.

I do consider your objection refuted.

 

[lesliedellow]

What on earth are you trying to accomplish here, other than annoying everyone?

He is trying to convince himself that YEC is a viable position. In that connection, evidence to the contrary is clearly not helpful, so he manages not to hear it.

 

[-57]

Changing the subject again, I see. Let me recap. . . You asked for examples of beneficial mutations. I gave some to you. You asked for a morphological mutation. I gave that to you. You asked how many beneficial mutations there have been. I gave you an estimate. You accused me of making up numbers. I explained my reasoning (with references). All of that happened in previous threads.

Now in this thread, you've started over from the beginning -- including accusing me of making up numbers. At no point do you acknowledge that you've been given exactly what you asked for, or that now you've asked the exact same questions and had them answered before, or that you've falsely accused me of something. Instead, you just skip on to the next question. What on earth are you trying to accomplish here, other than annoying everyone?

sfs, when you can actually move above the evoution coloring book level..where your type says, mutations happen, they change the organism, get selected, then become the norm of the population....get back to me.

When you come up with real numbers...get back to me.

Currently all you can do is hand-wave like the other evos.

What on earth am I doing here? Showing you that YOU can't explain how mutations add up. So far I've been successful.

 

[The Cadet]

This process is well above Incredulity.

No, it isn't. Literally all you're doing is pointing to a complex system and saying, "I don't believe this could have evolved". It is exactly the same argument. All that's changed is the degree of complexity.

 

[sfs]

sfs, when you can actually move above the evoution coloring book level..where your type says, mutations happen, they change the organism, get selected, then become the norm of the population....get back to me.

When you come up with real numbers...get back to me.

Currently all you can do is hand-wave like the other evos.

What on earth am I doing here? Showing you that YOU can't explain how mutations add up. So far I've been successful.

Show some integrity here, please. You wrote about me, "You forgot to mention the part where they were pulled out of the air. It wasn't an estimate. Just an unsupported quess." In reality, I've explained my reasoning and provided links to scientific papers supporting it. Now, are you willing to defend your quoted statement or retract it? Or will you just keep trying to change the subject?

 

[pat34lee]

I never claimed that it is. Natural selection is one of the tools of evolution. Surely you know that by now?

Since there is no evolution, nothing is part of it. Adaptation is
observable and repeatable, so is natural selection. Evolution is
neither. It is a hoax.

 

[lesliedellow]

Since there is no evolution, nothing is part of it. Adaptation is
observable and repeatable, so is natural selection. Evolution is
neither. It is a hoax.

So, genius, how do organisms adapt to their environment?

 

[sfs]

Since there is no evolution, nothing is part of it. Adaptation is
observable and repeatable, so is natural selection. Evolution is
neither. It is a hoax.

You are confused about evolution -- natural selection is indeed part of evolution. In fact, it was the part of Darwin's theory that scientists had the hardest time accepting.

 

[pat34lee]

So, genius, how do organisms adapt to their environment?

Thank you. If I thought you were being sarcastic, I'd have to
report your post for flaming.

Adaptation is part of the genetic function. It is what gave us several
hundred breeds of dogs from one kind of ancestor.

 

[pat34lee]

You are confused about evolution -- natural selection is indeed part of evolution. In fact, it was the part of Darwin's theory that scientists had the hardest time accepting.

Nope. Natural selection does just the opposite of evolution.
It works to maintain the status quo of the genes. Adaptation,
the other supposed source of evolution cannot pass the kind
barrier. Dogs will always breed dogs of some sort.

 

[-57]

No, it isn't. Literally all you're doing is pointing to a complex system and saying, "I don't believe this could have evolved". It is exactly the same argument. All that's changed is the degree of complexity.

Nope...the process you claim was derived by a process containing random chance....where most changes would not even be close to beneficial......tweaking a code...increasing information....can't possible happen by accident.

 

[lesliedellow]

Nope. Natural selection does just the opposite of evolution.
It works to maintain the status quo of the genes. Adaptation,
the other supposed source of evolution cannot pass the kind
barrier. Dogs will always breed dogs of some sort.

You don't even know what the words used by biologists mean.

 

[-57]

Show some integrity here, please. You wrote about me, "You forgot to mention the part where they were pulled out of the air. It wasn't an estimate. Just an unsupported quess." In reality, I've explained my reasoning and provided links to scientific papers supporting it. Now, are you willing to defend your quoted statement or retract it? Or will you just keep trying to change the subject?

sfs, I'm not buying your malarkey.
Either put up or kindly shut up. Sheeze, for a bunch of evo minded people....all of you have nothing. YOU WOULD THINK that after 150 years of evolutiony research....you could demonstrate how it works above the coloring book level.

Sooooooo, you've provided me with links to scientific papers.....I'm not going to spend my evening reading a bunch of bull...just to read a paragrapg YOU think answers the question. Either explain it your self with real numbers...or do one heck of a cut and paste job.

 

[-57]

So, genius, how do organisms adapt to their environment?

You do know there is a big diffeence between selecting from...natural or not..an already established genome as opposed to natural selection developing a new genome.

 

[-57]

You are confused about evolution -- natural selection is indeed part of evolution. In fact, it was the part of Darwin's theory that scientists had the hardest time accepting.

Oh my...the bird with the already established genes for a bigger beak...cracks the bigger seed.
If you consider this as descent with modification....turn in your degree.

 

[lesliedellow]

You do know there is a big diffeence between selecting from...natural or not..an already established genome as opposed to natural selection developing a new genome.

I know what natural selection means, which pat34lee appears not to, and maybe you don't either.

 

[-57]

I know what natural selection means, which pat34lee appears not to, and maybe you don't either.

The evolutionary noise seen in the environment would stop natural selection dead in its tracks when it comes to changing a genome to the point that its DNA can code for a more complex and novel feature...unless it would be enormous..which is something the evos claim doesn't happen.

 

[lesliedellow]

The evolutionary noise seen in the environment would stop natural selection dead in its tracks when it comes to changing a genome to the point that its DNA can code for a more complex and novel feature...unless it would be enormous..which is something the evos claim doesn't happen.

I am not sure that even makes sense.

 

[sfs]

sfs, I'm not buying your malarkey.
Either put up or kindly shut up. Sheeze, for a bunch of evo minded people....all of you have nothing. YOU WOULD THINK that after 150 years of evolutiony research....you could demonstrate how it works above the coloring book level.

Sooooooo, you've provided me with links to scientific papers.....I'm not going to spend my evening reading a bunch of bull...just to read a paragrapg YOU think answers the question. Either explain it your self with real numbers...or do one heck of a cut and paste job.

Nice job -- when asked to defend your insults, your only response is a refusal to look at evidence and further insults. I can't actually pry open your eyes and force you to look at the numbers, you know. All I can do is tell you what my reasoning was and where the numbers come from. I did that.