How to choose between creation and evolution.

[PsychoSarah]

It follows then that the first critters that ate the bacteria were not 'animals'. My statement therefore stands. The bacteria evolved for these critters just in time for dinner.

Lol, no, the bacteria predated eukaryotic organisms by over a billion years. And it is very obvious that bacteria which gain energy from sunlight, heat, chemicals in the environment, etc., would predate anything that consumed other living organisms, because those things arose in environments that provided energy in a form that was able to produce their ancestral protocells. That is, environments that produce life also are suitable for it to persist in... the life at the time, not necessarily many modern organisms.

-_- also, this fits fossil record observations.

Regardless, autotrophs predate heterotrophs by vast periods of time. They didn't "evolve just in time for dinner".

 

[USincognito]

It's called "intellectual honesty" and you'll find such language in every science papers.

And in many Creationist articles. For some reason, that's not a big deal for them.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

That evolution is an incomplete puzzle built upon crucial pieces that as yet have not been found.

What? Because we're not able to quickly google up the exact evolutionary history of one gene?

Given that no-one has found a God yet, don't you feel that Christianity is by orders magnitude more incomplete?

It seems as if you are being rather hypocritical here. Or, that you are trying to play the creationist strategy of asking for incredibly detailed evidence for every single step of evolution while not providing even a smidgeon of evidence for creationism.

 

[xianghua]

His request was very vague (possibly because he doesn't understand biology enough to ask the right question.) Even then he was given information. Look, I can give even more:

Foundational Toolkit Genes

or: Molecular Evolution of Bat Color Vision Genes | Molecular Biology and Evolution | Oxford Academic

or: A clear, molecular view of how human color vision evolved

or: http://www.rctn.org/vs265/landfernald92.pdf

etc. etc. etc.

Just pretending that he 'won't get an answer' when he already has been given several answers is going to achieve ... what exactly?

Let me guess: Both you and him will not be able to give any rebuttal to this research, will try to arm-wave it away, and then pretend later on that you haven't been given an answer/any evidence.

why not? lets check this. my main claim is that no one can show how many DNA changes we will need to evolve the first eyespot. if there are so many scientific papers about that topic it should be easy to answer that question; including a testable model.

 

[xianghua]

The reason nobody answer such a question, is because nobody here has the energy nore time to give you people a college level crash course on genetics and bio-chemistry on an internet forum.

If you wish to learn the answer to such questions and actually understand them, you're going to have to get some books and start studying.

Don't ask us to write you guys a 1000 word thesis on how it works technically, when it's completely obvious that you don't even properly understand the basics of the basics.

In an analogy to math, you are asking us to explain to you how to solve advanced equations, while you are barely able to work out 2+2.

so you have no answer to that question as i predicted. thanks for this clarification

 

[AnotherAtheist]

why not? lets check this. my main claim is that no one can show how many DNA changes we will need to evolve the first eyespot. if there are so many scientific papers about that topic it should be easy to answer that question; including a testable model.

Why don't you go the whole hog and say that your 'main claim' is that unless someone can say exactly which beach the first vertebrate crawled out onto land, then it didn't happen?

What you and OldWiseGuy are doing is trying to find any uncertainty in our knowledge (and of course there will always be some) no matter how trivial and then claim that this invalidates evolution.

Perhaps you need to look at some of the missing bits of the creationist puzzle. Why don't we start with actual objective, verifiable, evidence for a God in the first place? And also a testable model for establishing the existence of God. That's a rather big part of your puzzle to be missing.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

so you have no answer to that question as i predicted. thanks for this clarification

Is there a God? Do you have a testable model for a God?

I'm waiting for your answer.

 

[xianghua]

Let's stick to the facts, instead. And the facts are that it is a non-living object that does not reproduce and that doesn't occur naturally in the world, but needs to be manufactured by humans.

so if that object was able to reproduce you will say that its just evolved by a natural process? yes or not?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And we should agree with your personal opinion on this, why exactly?

No need to agree. What fun is that?

 

[bhsmte]

No need to agree. What fun is that?

Didn't say anything about need, I asked why would anyone take your personal opinion on this matter.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I won't keep you waiting.

Is there a God?

Yes.

Do you have a testable model for a God?

Yes, but it's subjective, and not very scientific.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Didn't say anything about need, I asked why would anyone take your personal opinion on this matter.

Because it might make sense to them.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

so if that object was able to reproduce you will say that its just evolved by a natural process? yes or not?

You're back to your ridiculous analogies then?

For your analogy to work, you need more than just an object (say a watch) that can reproduce. It needs to match all of the following.

1. It needs to be able to reproduce and produce variant offspring.
2. There should be a population of these watches showing variety.
3. There should be other populations of watches that show greater or lesser degrees of similarity, but do not reproduce with other populations of these objects, forming species.
4. These species should fit neatly into a tree showing common descent.
5. The barriers between these species of watches should not be precise, and the more similar the species the less the barrier.
6. There must be some genetic code of the watches allowing us to independently verify relatedness, and then find that the tree of relatedness that we produce is sufficiently consistent with the one from 4.
7. There must be a fossil record consistent with a history of evolution of watches from simple ancestors over billions of years, again consistent with the tree of relatedness produced in 4 and 6.
8. Etc. etc. etc.

If all of those characteristics are met by your watch, then yes I'd say that it evolved by a natural process. How could anyone deny evolution and common descent given all that?

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Yes.

I didn't ask for an unsupported claim that there is a God.

Yes, but it's subjective, and not very scientific.

So, no you don't have an objective testable model for God then.

I guess that means I win then and evolution is comprehensively proved. At least by your logic of previous posts.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

To paraphrase Lawrence Krauss:

"You can keep on asking 'why?', 'why?', 'why?',... till you are blue in the face. And in the end, the only proper answer will be "go to bed!"



This. Indeed. You aren't interested in what is actually true or what is actually supported by evidence. Nope. All you are interested in, is "painting evolutionists into a corner".

Exactly. Whatever you can do to pretend to validate your a priori faith based beliefs.



We are trying to educate you in matters of biology.
But if there is an unwillingness to learn, then it is an exercise in futility.

It would explain why you people keep on repeating the same falsehoods that have been corrected dozens of times over.

From the link on post #347

Abstract
Paired box (PAX) genes are transcription factors that play important roles in embryonic development. Although the PAX gene family occurs in animals only, it is widely distributed. Among the vertebrates, its 9 genes appear to be the product of complete duplication of an original set of 4 genes, followed by an additional partial duplication. Although some studies of PAX genes have been conducted, no comprehensive survey of these genes across the entire taxonomic unit has yet been attempted. In this study, we conducted a detailed comparison of PAX sequences from 188 chordates, which revealed restricted variation. The absence of PAX4 and PAX8 among some species of reptiles and birds was notable; however, all 9 genes were present in all 74 mammalian genomes investigated. A search for signatures of selection indicated that all genes are subject to purifying selection, with a possible constraint relaxation in PAX4, PAX7, and PAX8. This result indicates asymmetric evolution of PAX family genes, which can be associated with the emergence of adaptive novelties in the chordate evolutionary trajectory.

Would you briefly explain the highlighted terms to me as they relate to the topic?

 

[xianghua]

What you and OldWiseGuy are doing is trying to find any uncertainty in our knowledge (and of course there will always be some) no matter how trivial and then claim that this invalidates evolution.

no. i actually made a prediction about id model. the prediction is that we cant show how a simple eye can evolve step by step. this is because even the simplest eye cant evolve stepwise so no one will be able to show a stepwise way to evolve it. and as you can see now: even after all those papers we still have no answer for this question.

Why don't we start with actual objective, verifiable, evidence for a God in the first place?

sure. why not? you already gave an answer here:

You're back to your ridiculous analogies then?

For your analogy to work, you need more than just an object (say a watch) that can reproduce. It needs to match all of the following.

1. It needs to be able to reproduce and produce variant offspring.
2. There should be a population of these watches showing variety.
3. There should be other populations of watches that show greater or lesser degrees of similarity, but do not reproduce with other populations of these objects, forming species.
4. These species should fit neatly into a tree showing common descent.
5. The barriers between these species of watches should not be precise, and the more similar the species the less the barrier.
6. There must be some genetic code of the watches allowing us to independently verify relatedness, and then find that the tree of relatedness that we produce is sufficiently consistent with the one from 4.
7. There must be a fossil record consistent with a history of evolution of watches from simple ancestors over billions of years, again consistent with the tree of relatedness produced in 4 and 6.
8. Etc. etc. etc.

If all of those characteristics are met by your watch, then yes I'd say that it evolved by a natural process. How could anyone deny evolution and common descent given all that?

so if the watch i showed above will have all traits that we see in nature you will conclude that this watch were evolved by a natural process?

 

[Speedwell]

n


so if the watch i showed above will have all traits that we see in nature you will conclude that this watch were evolved by a natural process?

It seems the most reasonable conclusion. It might also be designed, but we would not be able to tell with no more evidence than you have given us.

 

[bhsmte]

Because it might make sense to them.

If they understand and or accept well evidenced science it won't. If a certain personal faith belief takes priority over well evidenced science, than it may be quite comfy cozy.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I didn't ask for an unsupported claim that there is a God.



So, no you don't have an objective testable model for God then.

I guess that means I win then and evolution is comprehensively proved. At least by your logic of previous posts.

Here is the link you provided as "comprehensively proved" evidence of evolution.

Evolutionary History of Chordate PAX Genes: Dynamics of Change in a Complex Gene Family

Did you even read it? If so did you notice the dozens of suppositions?

Do you think a believer of evolution should understand what is in this article? If not, why not?

How many who 'believe in evolution' have the foggiest idea what this article is saying?

How can one believe something that they don't understand, when the experts themselves don't understand it?

 

[USincognito]

I just keep asking why until you have no answers, which occurs rather quickly.



We are interested in painting evolutionists into a corner. You are a slippery bunch though, like a wet bar of soap. We have a hard time 'grasping' what you are trying to put over on us.

Bahahahaha! It's almost like some of the alternative facts from the American Politics subforum has bled over into the Crevo subforum. Hilarious to read stuff like this.