How an Evangelical Creationist Accepted Evolution

[Hoghead1]

The "monkey trial" was the way the newspapers put it. However, evolution contends that humans came from a common ancestor to both ourselves and also apes. No one in evolution, then, ever said we evolved from monkeys.
Also, again, you should not put too much trust in Wikipedia. OK for quick references or quick reads, but that's it. Many professors will not allow it as a reference source in students' papers. I know I wouldn't. You shod be more respectful and honor what someone says when I or someone else points out they find a certain label objectionable or do not care to use it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Allright, i see.

Incidentally, just to clarify something:

You said I complimented you when I said you sounded like a scientist -- and I'm glad you took it that way.

But for the record, very, Very, VERY few people on here don't sound like a scientist to me.

Let's just say I'm "science challenged".

So everyone who talks that mumbo-jumbo stuff sounds like a scientist to me.

At the least, I'm willing to refer to them as a "scientific methodist;" meaning they employ the scientific method to try to pwn the Scriptures.

Even consol sounds sciency to me at times!

 

[Loudmouth]

Would they know perfect DNA if they saw it?

Perfect DNA is something you invented. Up to you tell us how it can be detected and the criteria you are using.

 

[Loudmouth]

How do we know it is a mutation and not just a variant of the original genes,
like brown hair or red hair in populations having mostly black hair?

In the family trio studies, they sequenced the entire genomes of the parents and the child. If there is a DNA difference found in the child but in neither of the parents, then that is a mutation.

 

[Hoghead1]

Like I said, Hieronymus, you need to do some more careful studying. And it sure wouldn't hurt if you learned to be a bit more respectful in what you say. I realize you don't like evolutionary thinkers. However, you are not at all qualified to sit in judgment on evolution or anything else in mainstream science. If you want to ridicule it all as indoctrination, you should go some place else, as that is a totally inappropriate way to respond in a theological discussion group. You shod address your opponent's arguments and not attack his or her character.

 

[Loudmouth]

Most mutations are non-transferable,

How so?

If it is part of your genome, then it will be part of the genome found in your gametes. Meiosis doesn't go through and pick out the 35 or 50 mutations you were born with.

and those that are, are usually weeded out
within a few generations.

Evidence? Reference?

Only 10-20% of the human genome shows any signs of negative selection, meaning that most mutations are passed on at a rate consistent with chance. Each heterozygous mutation has a 50/50 chance of being passed on. Each homozygous mutation has a 100% chance of being passed on.

http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1004525

Anyhow, there is nothing proving that mutation rates
are stable across the board. Some species or even individuals are more prone to
mutations than others.

I agree. Doesn't change the fact that mutations occur.

 

[Loudmouth]

You have that worded wrong. We differ in at least 40 million places.

How is that any different than a mutation?

Are you saying that if we purposefully change a base that it will not cause any harm, but if that same base is changed through the natural process of mutation that it will cause harm?

 

[Hieronymus]

Incidentally, just to clarify something:

You said I complimented you when I said you sounded like a scientist -- and I'm glad you took it that way.

But for the record, very, Very, VERY few people on here don't sound like a scientist to me.

Let's just say I'm "science challenged".
So everyone who talks that mumbo-jumbo stuff sounds like a scientist to me.

At the least, I'm willing to refer to them as a "scientific methodist;" meaning they employ the scientific method to try to pwn the Scriptures.

That's just bluff.
A lame excuse to scoff, because God is outside the scientific paradigm.
As a consequence there is no way science can refute creation.
Also because it has already happened a long time ago, no witnesses.

Even consol sounds sciency to me at times!

Maybe it's time to consolidate?

 

[Hieronymus]

How is that any different than a mutation?

Are you saying that if we purposefully change a base that it will not cause any harm, but if that same base is changed through the natural process of mutation that it will cause harm?

That's only logical, isn't it?
Natural mutations are random, purposeless.
It's just data-corruption.

 

[Loudmouth]

That's only logical, isn't it?
Natural mutations are random, purposeless.
It's just data-corruption.

What is logical? Let's say that the random process of mutations produces this change:

ATTGCGGTCT ------> ATGGCGGTCT

This mutation resulted in a serious disease.

Humans now go in and purposefully produce the exact same mutation.

Are you saying that the human produced mutation will not result in the same disease? If so, what is the mechanism that prevents human produced mutations from producing diseases when the same mutations produced by random processes do cause mutations?

 

[Hieronymus]

What is logical? Let's say that the random process of mutations produces this change:

ATTGCGGTCT ------> ATGGCGGTCT

This mutation resulted in a serious disease.

Humans now go in and purposefully produce the exact same mutation.

Do you mean by procreation?
We didn't invent that, that's just us being mammals.
The purpose is not to reproduce a mutation, it's just us answering our hormones etc.

Are you saying that the human produced mutation will not result in the same disease?

I thought you meant a purposeful mutation by man, genetic science etc..

 

[Loudmouth]

Do you mean by procreation?
We didn't invent that, that's just us being mammals.
The purpose is not to reproduce a mutation, it's just us answering our hormones etc.I thought you meant a purposeful mutation by man, genetic science etc..

Some people are making the claim that almost all, and even perhaps all, mutations are harmful. If you can't change a genome at all, then what should we see?

Well, we should see a single species, and all of its members should have identical genomes. Is that the case? No.

These simple facts fly in the face of the rather uninformed claim that any and all mutations are bad.

 

[Hieronymus]

Like I said, Hieronymus, you need to do some more careful studying.

Is that so?

And it sure wouldn't hurt if you learned to be a bit more respectful in what you say.

Allright, i'll give you that...

I realize you don't like evolutionary thinkers.

Evolutionary thinkers should draw the conclusion it's just a conjecture, very much more unlikely than the "occams razor": creation by a very very intelligent creator.

However, you are not at all qualified to sit in judgment on evolution or anything else in mainstream science.

Well well...

If you want to ridicule it all as indoctrination, you should go some place else, as that is a totally inappropriate way to respond in a theological discussion group.

This is not theology.
Maybe YOU should avoid different views?

You should address your opponent's arguments and not attack his or her character.

You mean like you do?

 

[Hieronymus]

Some people are making the claim that almost all, and even perhaps all, mutations are harmful. If you can't change a genome at all, then what should we see?

Degradation.
Fortunately for all us living beings the reproducing system is rather overbuilt, can handle data-mistakes, can correct them even, but it's still a system without maintenance, it runs as "stand alone".
Also, really nasty mutations tend not to survive or find a mate, will not be a part of the gene pool for long.

 

[Loudmouth]

Degradation.

All the other species are degraded versions of humans?

Fortunately for all us living beings the reproducing system is rather overbuilt, can handle data-mistakes, can correct them even, but it's still a system without maintenance, it runs as "stand alone".
Also, really nasty mutations tend not to survive or find a mate, will not be a part of the gene pool for long.

Then how do we survive with 40 million mutations, as compared to the chimp genome?

 

[Hoghead1]

For the record, I find no one at all here who is a scientist or who sounds like a scientist. What I find generally are individuals venting their spleens, evidencing an unreasoning hatred of mainstream science, biblical scholarship, and other key academic areas. Not cool, guys. Also, I find there are many myths about science being paraded here. For example, one major reason why creationists are often scoffed at by scientists and serious students of science is that they maintain evolution claims we descended from monkeys. This is way off base and therefore shows a lack of sstute ness on the part of many creationists. Rather, the scientific claim is that a common ancestor branched into tow distinct lineages, one in the direction of apes, the other in the direction of early humanlike creatures. What was this common ancestor like? In 2007, a Japanese team of scientists found fossil remains, including a jaw bone, of what is believed to be this common ancestor. So it is also a creationist-generated myth that no one has any idea about what this common ancestor was like. Another common myth generated by creationists is that evolutionary science has produced no hard evidence. Really? Consider that science has demonstrated the age of the universe to be at least 13.5 billion years old. That sure is hare d evidence that invalidates the creationists' claims for a young earth. What has the response of creationists been? Setterfield, who has absolutely no background in astrophysics , simply tried to invalidate all scientific measure of c. He argued c was infinite at the beginning o of creation and has been slowing down ever since. Well, where is the evidence for that? All he could offer was an argument that estimates of c had been getting slower over the years. Wrong. A careful study of the historic estimates of c shows it has been getting faster. In addition, modern physics has carefully studied light and finds no variation in c. Yet creationists continue to insist the c was infinite at the beginning of creation. So who is flying without any real evidence? Another problem is that creationists often have no real credentials or education in science. Unfortunately, this is the case here. Hence, we have more than one self-appointed major critic of mainstream science who in no way, shape, or form possess anywhere near the qualifications and credentials to sit in judgment on mainstream science.

 

[Hieronymus]

All the other species are degraded versions of humans?

???
How did you.. where did i..?

No, all organisms are degraded copies of the original(s).

This is to be expected when there are random mutations, because it's just data-corruption, purposeless.

 

[Hoghead1]

Incidentally, the "monkey trail" was about whether or not a gym substitute teacher had taught anything at all about evolution in a biology class. When examined, he appeared to know very little about evolution and so did the students. In the end, he lost and had to pay a fine.

 

[Loudmouth]

???
How did you.. where did i..?

Other species differ from the human genome due to mutations. So are they degraded versions of humans?

No, all organisms are degraded copies of the original(s).

So we are degraded versions of the common ancestor of all mammals?

 

[Hieronymus]

Incidentally, the "monkey trail" was about whether or not a gym substitute teacher had taught anything at all about evolution in a biology class. When examined, he appeared to know very little about evolution and so did the students. In the end, he lost and had to pay a fine.

So it's illegal to not teach a poor conjecture that; s been completely bankrupt since man discovered DNA.
Naturalistic fascism, defended by a protestant.
Shouldn't protestants be protesting against this unproven unlikely worldly doctrine ?