How to choose between creation and evolution.

[Speedwell]

so higher power isnt a designer? fine.

That's right. Not in the sense that ID proposes.

 

[xianghua]

That’s not exactly what that graph said.

how not if most biologists believe in higher power?

 

[Speedwell]

how not if most biologists believe in higher power?

Because believing in a higher power is not the same thing as buying into ID. Intelligent Design is a Dominionist propaganda hoax based on the logical fallacy of equivocating two different meanings of the word "design." This fallacy is so blatantly obvious that most of us who believe in God are too smart to fall for it.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

And you evidently never heard of the proven genetic fact---the offspring CANNOT receive a characteristic that is not in the gene pool of its parents.

Lol! There's no such 'genetic fact' or proof; you're just making it up.

Mutations in the offspring's genome can give rise to a huge variety of characteristics (traits) that were not in the gene pool of its parents - from relatively harmless ones affecting sensitivity to certain tastes & smells, to nasty diseases such as those described here.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Lol! There's no such 'genetic fact' or proof; you're just making it up.

Mutations in the offspring's genome can give rise to a huge variety of characteristics (traits) that were not in the gene pool of its parents - from relatively harmless ones affecting sensitivity to certain tastes & smells, to nasty diseases such as those described here.

It's those generational mutations that give us our individuality, otherwise we might look like clones. Clever of God to do that.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It's those generational mutations that give us our individuality, otherwise we might look like clones. Clever of God to do that.

Well, no, not really. We only get around 50 to 60 mutations each on average, and most of those don't have a significant effect in most people. Our individuality is mostly a combination of the mixing of genes from our parents and the influence of the environment and our experiences on our development (i.e. nature + nurture). Even genetically identical twins will differ significantly in many ways because of their differing experiences.

 

[DogmaHunter]

So I know a little about health and fitness (just one of my many talents).

So, being able to climb a tree, makes you an expert in anatomy?

Owkay.

 

[DogmaHunter]

so higher power isnt a designer? fine.

Nothing about the words "higher power" implies that this is a personal god that creates biological organisms on some blue dot in this particular corner of the galaxy.

 

[omega2xx]

Here's an honest question....
When you request for evidence... what exactly is it, that you hope to receive?
Can you describe what kind of evidence you are looking for? Don't be afraid to be specific here.

Because you keep shooting everything down for no apparant reason.

So instead of leaving us guessing what you are looking for, perhaps try to be a bit more specific.

Use an example if that makes it easier.
What would be a valid piece of evidence, in your opinion?

All real evidence can be repeated and observed. We can see that water will always boil at the same temperature under the same conditions. If they check my blood type 100 times, it will always be shown to be O+. Every time I plant corn, not only do I always get corn, I get the exact same variety I planted.

You have never seen a dog produce anything other than another dog. You try to attribute mutations and time as a mechanism for a change of species. Not only has that never been observed, time will not change proven processes.

One of the claims of evolution is that evolution results in a higher order. l Yet the great number of mutations are harmful. How can what is harmful result in a higher order? It can't.

My 2 favorite requests for evolution is to show the evidence for natural selection and how can the leg of a land animal, pakicetus, genetically become the fin a sea animal.

For natural selection they ALWAYS offer something like "the rabbit with the stronger legs will be more able to escape the fox."

First of all, there is no gene for stronger legs. Second even if there was and the rabbit survived, it would still only produce more rabbits. The species would survive, but it would not change. In fact natural selection has been called "the survival of the fittest."

The explanation from leg to fin never tells how an animal with no gene for fins can produce a kid with fins. They say the bone structure of a paw and a fin are similar. even if that was true, which it is not, what is similar will never be the same. and second That change is genetically IMPOSSIBLE. The parents MUST HAVE a gene fore any characteristic their kid gets.

You have ask an honest and necessary question. I hope this will better help you understand where I am coming from

 

[omega2xx]

Lol! There's no such 'genetic fact' or proof; you're just making it up.

Mutations in the offspring's genome can give rise to a huge variety of characteristics (traits) that were not in the gene pool of its parents - from relatively harmless ones affecting sensitivity to certain tastes & smells, to nasty diseases such as those described here.

You are also ignorant of what mutations do. They cannot add information, they can only alter information.

When a mutation causes albinoism, the species does not change. Only the kids skin pigmation is affected, and that condition may not even be passed on to the next generation.

Your link was the usual evo talking points and offered no verifiable scientific evidence. You have NEVER seen a mutation cause a change of species. That is a necessary false statement to give the Darwin faithful hope their faith has not been in vain.

 

[DogmaHunter]

All real evidence can be repeated and observed. We can see that water will always boil at the same temperature under the same conditions. If they check my blood type 100 times, it will always be shown to be O+. Every time I plant corn, not only do I always get corn, I get the exact same variety I planted.

Those are observations / facts.
To qualify as evidence, you need an explanatory framework where you can fit those facts in in such a way that they become supportive of that framework.

You know that right? Because it sounds like you don't.

You have never seen a dog produce anything other than another dog.

Evolution would be falsified, if that were to happen.

You try to attribute mutations and time as a mechanism for a change of species. Not only has that never been observed, time will not change proven processes.

Google "observed speciation".

One of the claims of evolution is that evolution results in a higher order. l Yet the great number of mutations are harmful. How can what is harmful result in a higher order? It can't.

This is also false. The majority of mutations are neutral.
Some are harmfull and some are beneficial.
Also: neutral / harmfull / beneficial with respect to fitness.

My 2 favorite requests for evolution is to show the evidence for natural selection and how can the leg of a land animal, pakicetus, genetically become the fin a sea animal.

For natural selection they ALWAYS offer something like "the rabbit with the stronger legs will be more able to escape the fox."

First of all, there is no gene for stronger legs. Second even if there was and the rabbit survived, it would still only produce more rabbits. The species would survive, but it would not change. In fact natural selection has been called "the survival of the fittest."

The explanation from leg to fin never tells how an animal with no gene for fins can produce a kid with fins. They say the bone structure of a paw and a fin are similar. even if that was true, which it is not, what is similar will never be the same. and second That change is genetically IMPOSSIBLE. The parents MUST HAVE a gene fore any characteristic their kid gets.

You have ask an honest and necessary question. I hope this will better help you understand where I am coming from

Yes, actually, it does help to understand a few things.

For example, it became extra clear that you have no idea what you are talking about and that you wouldn't recognise smoking gun evidence in support of evolution, if it came up and hit you in the face. Because you have no clue what evolution is all about.

When you say things like "you never saw a dog produce anything other then a dog", then we instantly know that you don't understand the first thing about evolution.

Obviously, if you don't even understand the basics of the process you are demanding supporting evidence for, you won't be recognizing that evidence for what it is, when presented.

Couple that with an a priori religious belief that you have already decided upon before even asking the question.......

And then we can conclude that wasting time on your request is just that: wasting time.

 

[CrystalWolf]

DNA RNA and the Flagellin motor are not something that time energy and matter are possible of generating. Who wrote the codes and then achieved a balance and harmony with amazing variety in the various climate zones? Man or random mutations? Seems when I watch a nature video they agree with the Bible and show creation unspoiled in some remote area and it is good. Then they bring in man and show man with dominion over the creation and certainly in a fallen state as we are the only ones destroying all environments. The recognize man is different than the animals and set over creation and not doing well over it. This Bible which recorded this history of God creating in 7 days also predicted that man would one day have the ability to kill all life on the planet if God did not intervene. If you do some research as to was there was a global flood it provides plenty of evidence that this is history with a genealogy going back to Adam not that long before the flood. God calls those willfully ignorant who do not recognize He exists as the creation itself is considered proof of His eternal power and intelligence. Genesis is a foundation for the whole of scripture and it is a literal history.

Problem I have with that is while that may be said to point to "a" creator, it tells us nothing about who said creator "is".

 

[DogmaHunter]

You are also ignorant of what mutations do. They cannot add information, they can only alter information.

That is demonstrably false.

You have NEVER seen a mutation cause a change of species.

It has been explained to you countless times, that that is not how it works.

 

[Jimmy D]

You have NEVER seen a mutation cause a change of species.

Seriously? I have to ask, are you some sort of idiot? Can you actually read? How many times do you need to be told something before it sinks in, it's almost as if you are deliberately presenting this straw man of yours .....


"Are you under the impression that any biologist believes a new species could arise in one generation?"

post-72046087
............................

"Of course, anyone who knew anything about evolution would understand that one mutation alone would not cause a change of species.

It is many mutations over many generations that cause a new species."

post-72063854

..............................

"A single mutation causing a new species? How would that work? Mutations occur all the time, but it takes many mutations to make a new species."

post-72068105
...............................

"Singular mutations do not change species. Multiple mutations together can. It's like how one log of wood doesn't make for a pile of wood, but multiple logs do. "

post-72234810

...................................

"In evolution, every individual ever born was of the same species as its parents."

post-72244601

.....................................

"Speciation: a gradual process that unfolds in populations, not in individuals and not overnight."

post-72244649
.....................................
https://www.christianforums.com/thr...al-yec-in-a-lie.8034754/page-28#post-72234810

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So, being able to climb a tree, makes you an expert in anatomy?

Owkay.

I didn't know I said that.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I didn't know I said that.

Well, you did offer your "fitness" up as an argument against things concerning anatomy.
If you weren't, then I can only wonder why you brought it up.

 

[Jjmcubbin]

It's those generational mutations that give us our individuality, otherwise we might look like clones. Clever of God to do that.

Let me tell you a little something about two things:
1. Mendel's Law of Independent Inheritance
What it pretty much means is that during cell division, chromosomes are inherited separately.
Eg: Let us say you have 2 sets of chromosomes i.e. Aa, Bb. During meiosis (anaphase 1), the homologous (paired) chromosomes separate.
Your gametes could have AB, Ab, aB, ab i.e. Each chromosome is inherited independently. Pair it with the other parent's independently inherited chromosome, and you have got a lot of differences.

2. Crossing Over
In order you know this, you would first have to know about the cell cycle, mitosis (to make understanding meiosis easier) and meiosis. I would have to draw diagrams to show you. I am too lazy to do that. So, in a nutshell, crossing over involves exchange of genetic material between non-sister chromatids of homologous chromosomes.

Together, these are called Recombination.
Also, mutations.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You are also ignorant of what mutations do. They cannot add information, they can only alter information.

Wrong; for example, a duplication mutation adds (duplicate) information. A duplication followed by a sequence mutation adds novel information. Whether that information makes a significant difference is contingent.

When a mutation causes albinoism, the species does not change. Only the kids skin pigmation is affected, and that condition may not even be passed on to the next generation.

Correct. The species will only change if the gene pool of the whole population changes significantly, which requires heritable mutations that have a long-term selective advantage so they are preferentially passed to subsequent generations.

You have NEVER seen a mutation cause a change of species. That is a necessary false statement to give the Darwin faithful hope their faith has not been in vain.

Straw man - as we keep telling you, speciation involves a significant change in the gene pool of a population. A single mutation is generally not sufficient to do that (apart from a very few arguable oddities, such as this asexually reproducing crayfish).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

One of the claims of evolution is that evolution results in a higher order.

No; evolution only promotes reproductive success. That may or may not lead to a 'higher order' (I presume you mean greater complexity?). There are many instances where evolution has reduced complexity that was no longer advantageous.

But bear in mind that when you start with the simplest possible replicator, the only direction is of increasing complexity.

But as increasing complexity is statistically (energetically) more difficult than the status quo (or, in complex organisms, decreasing complexity), evolution predicts a hierarchy of complexity with very many simple organisms and decreasing numbers of increasingly complex organisms - which is what we see.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Problem I have with that is while that may be said to point to "a" creator, it tells us nothing about who said creator "is".

Or what...